It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In The Sex- Neutral, Color-Blind society Democrats want so bad, Cynthia McKinney would Be In Jail!!

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Although a lot has been said or done, but I think that there are other questions to ask. It's not over yet.

Why is everyone so sure that McKinney's actions were intentional? The U.S. Attorney's office is investigating the matter. However, no charges as of yet have been filed by the cop or the Capitol police. Why is the U.S. Attorney's office dragging this out if they are all set to condemn Ms. McKinney for her actions?

Why isn't the cop investigated? Why is everyone readily believing the cop's side? It would be interesting to see his record and his attitudes as well.

Why weren't her calls for racial profiling taken seriously and investigated? I could probably guess the answers. However, there have been other incidents between people of color and the Capitol police. And they weren't just with everyday people. Some occurrences happened with Congresspeople such as Rep. Louis Stokes (D-Ohio) as well as Black police officers within U.S. Capitol Police.

But Lucinda Marshall in in her essay might have another answer:


Laurel Thatcher Ulrich once pointed out that, "Well behaved women rarely make history." Perhaps she should have added that women who are deemed to have thrown what Marianne Means characterized as a "hissy fit" will surely become infamous.

While most of us would agree that taking a swing at a police officer is not a well considered thing to do, that does not invalidate McKinney's charges of racism and inappropriate touching. Nor does it justify the vicious and ignorant political and media lynching that followed[...]Nor is this is not the only time that charges of racial discrimination have been leveled against the Capitol Police. In 2001, Black Capitol police officers filed a racial discrimination suit against the department. Inappropriate behavior towards Black legislators has also not been limited to the nation's capitol. At Coretta Scott King's funeral, the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus was not allowed to join the funeral procession because the Georgia Capitol police did not recognize them as elected officials.

Astoundingly, the media lost no time in broadcasting Tom DeLay's pronouncement that ethics charges should be brought against McKinney for her "outrageous" behavior. Did they think that a man who spearheaded a redistricting plan that the Justice Department has deemed to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act and who is leaving office because of his own unethical behavior was qualified to make such charges?


Several questions could be discerned from seattlelaw's explaination of battery as well:


Orginally quoted by seattlelaw
Your definition actually doesn't contain the three required elements for criminal battery. These include (1) the conduct itself, i.e., touching, (2) the mens rea or mental state of the defendant, and (3) the necessary harmful result to the person.


Why wouldn't the mental state of Ms. McKinney be investigated? I've read many an article, blog and op-ed piece saying Ms. McKinney's "crazy". Where's the clinical analysis of her behavior and state of mind (One should be worried if a clinical analysis comes back and deems her a psychopath)?

Well then, if she was truly found insane, she wouldn't be convicted because she would not know the extensivity of her actions toward the cop. Wouldn't that be the case? So justice couldn't truly be served by the naysayers because she would ultimately be found mentally incompetent. Be careful what you wish for.

And I also agree that if the cop suffered terribly from Ms. McKinney's supposed "punch", the press would have been all over it. No one likes a good story without the blood and the gore. And if Ms. McKinney truly "battered" the cop, don't you think that they would show the pictures to prove how "crazy" and "brutal" she is? Knowing the "stereotypes" that have been used to describe her personality, it would be quick and easy to condemn her if she truly did damage to the officer--especially if the cop suffered "after effects" from the hit (such as muscle damage, blood clots, etc.).

Think about it. After Mr. Cheney supposedly shot his "acquaintance" the lawyer, day-by-day medical reports (especially with the heart-attack he suffered) were littered with follow-ups on the victim's condition. So, why be mum about the cop's condition if he was hurt by McKinney?

Why is the definition of battery from Black's Law so hard to believe? It is the definitive law dictionary. I compare it to DSM-IV in psychology.

Thirdly, there are only 14 Black women Congressmembers in all. And if Ms. McKinney is only one in a building of 251 members, how hard would it be for a security guard, say three years into the job, to miss her?

Also adding to this idea is the remarks of Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee (D-Tx) who was interviewed ondemocracynow.org :


REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE: First of all, I think all of us, including Congresswoman McKinney, respects the Capitol police and respects them for their responsibility and their job. But I believe that she is quite accurate in the fact that there are very few of us who happen to be African American women, and there are very few of us who would be so, if you will, difficult to be remembered, if you will, or to be able to be noticed. And frankly, many of us get either confused or asked for our I.D. or treated in a manner that is not necessarily accepting. And in this incident it was unfortunate. But it is the role of the Capitol police, of whom we respect, to basically know the members of the United States Congress. And if you are rushing toward a vote, a House vote -- and I think people should understand we have 15 minutes to cast a vote no matter where you might be in the entire capital of Washington, D.C. You might be in meetings off the Hill. You still have 15 minutes to vote. It's very difficult then to be stopped, while the clock is ticking, for to you cast your vote.

So I think this is a question, first of all, where it should be resolved away from the cameras. I certainly don't think an arrest warrant is appropriate. I hope that the arrest warrant is not issued so that there can be an issue on the Democratic side of the aisle, while there is an issue now with Tom DeLay on the Republican side of the aisle. And I hope that this can be resolved, respecting the Capitol police, respecting Congresswoman McKinney, who serves well in the United States Congress and serves her constituents. And most of all, I hope that we can reconcile this issue, so that we can continue our work. I think it's an issue that clearly has the opportunity to be reconciled outside the legal process and that any difficulty in identification can be solved in an administrative manner.


In fact, Ms. Lee continues to explain what happens to Congressmembers of color as well as the procedure regarding I.D. pins:


AMY GOODMAN: Has this ever happened to you, where you were not recognized?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE: Oh, on several occasions. And, of course, you have to suffer the indignity and sometimes handle it in a way that you don't care to handle it, because of the fact that you believe that you've served in the United States Congress and that you should be identifiable. So there is merit to the points that she is making. And there certainly may some concerns about securing the Capitol, which we understand has taken a whole different tone after 9/11.

But I think cooler heads can address this question in a way other than the criminal justice system of issuing an arrest warrant for a member of the United States Congress, who was within her right to be in the building and was within her right to be rushing toward the House floor to vote, as I understand the facts, and certainly should have had the courtesies of the Capitol police, as we should extend courtesies. So why can't this be resolved, where we learn who each other happens to be and we improve the picture book, if you will, and the training, so that we all can be fully identified.

There is no requirement, by the way, for any member to have an I.D. We do have them. But we may have been rushing from somewhere and not carrying the I.D., and there is no requirement for us to have a pin, which is our identifying pin, which I happen to be wearing at this time. But there is no requirement, as a understand it, for members to have that at this time.


And here is something to add to the conspiracy bandwagon about the high-tech "lynching" of Ms. McKinney:


wikipedia.org

Rep. McKinney is a co-sponsor of Rep. John Conyers's H. Res 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into potential grounds for the impeachment of President Bush. On January 20th, 2006, she also signed a statement by the group The World Can't Wait called Drive Out the Bush Regime.



I will wait to see the results.














[edit on 11-4-2006 by ceci2006]

[edit on 11-4-2006 by ceci2006]




posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint Gee, it seems to me, if she didn't stop at the security barriers...if the security guard had to catch up with her in order to stop her, in my book, that qualifies as a failed end-run (in football terms).
As for that swipe at DynaCorp Where's your links?
As for posting a thread that calls Lefties Hypocrits....gee, I thought I did.

Oh, my dear friend "Toelint", Bringer of the Light!

Yes, yes, "Toelint", Upholder of the Great and Grand; The Universal Principles of Love and Compassion!!

Here is a video!

And here is a transcript!

The missing trillions, the child sex-slave trafficking, the 9/11 wargames and the BlackPowerPantherBitch.

Pay particular attention to Rumsfeld as the Mighty McKinney asks the wargames question!

And keep reminding us how much you hate your fellow Americans!! We love it!!!

And p.s. Whom do you admire the most:

Tom Delay for his Great Principles,

"Duke" Cunningham for his Great Charity work,

Bill Frist for his financial wizardry or

Dick Cheney, for his efforts to keep Mr. Mandela locked up?





posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Her state of mind and the actual amount of pain inflicted have nothing to do with whether the act was committed.


That is incorrect. The state of mind of the accused is everything in a criminal context. Without mens rea, or criminal intent, there is no crime.


And keep your "hon's" and my "dears" to yourself. They are condescending, this isn't the Dating Game, and I'm quite happy with my lovely lady friend, thank you.


Some people find the term "lady" pejorative. It's all in the perception. The 'becky' in your id had me thinking you were female. If you are and you have a "lady friend" that's fine too. Liberals don't think there's anything wrong with that.
But if you're a dude and I'm calling you a chick then my apologies. I'm a dude but you can call me 'dear' and 'hon' and it won't bother me a bit. It's certainly better than some things I hear/read. Can I call you 'sweetie'?



Yeah, I know. Pedophilia may be condoned in some cultures. But this is the United States of America, and battery is a crime.


Again with the association with reprehensible criminal conduct. First it's beating infants, now it's molesting them. Are you a neocon by chance?

And in the US of A, last time I checked, the accused were innocent of any crime until proven guilty in a court of law. But, based upon media reports alone - something not admissible in a courtroom - you have her convicted already. If you ever get called for jury duty do everyone a favor and STAY HOME.



[edit on 11-4-2006 by seattlelaw]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw

Originally posted by jsobecky

Her state of mind and the actual amount of pain inflicted have nothing to do with whether the act was committed.


That is incorrect. The state of mind of the accused is everything in a criminal context. Without mens rea, or criminal intent, there is no crime.


Sure, seattlelaw. Walk into a courtroom and tell the judge that the reason you pulled the trigger and killed the cashier was that you were feeling "less than fresh". See how far that gets you.

No crime committed without intent... "I didn't mean to do it, judge" "Ok, no crime here. You can go."


How naive.:shk:


Some people find the term "lady" pejorative.

And I'm sure you're among them, in your PC based world.

You seem to have quite an interest in the sex lives of others. Is it because you can't keep on topic, or are you just a naughty little voyeur?


Again with the association with reprehensible criminal conduct. First it's beating infants, now it's molesting them. Are you a neocon by chance?

Nope. I'm American. But I'd bet my bottom dollar that you're a liberal. Now please excuse me; I've got to grill a few infants for lunch.


Btw, McKinney struck the officer. She's guilty.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Jsobecky, you need to drop this whole Judge Dread attitude. You're speaking about Jury, Judge and the Judiciary like you have a vast knowledge of it and this line here:


Her state of mind and the actual amount of pain inflicted have nothing to do with whether the act was committed.

It doesn't change the fact she struck the officer, it does bring into question if it was battery. Battery itself, has to be unlawful and your claims are that a crime was committed. However, no charges have yet been filed. You are acting as though you know for sure she will be found guilty.

Would you like to explain how? Or are you just going off of the media reports, which as I have pointed out state:
You do not have to wear a badge - openly stated by her.
You do not have to go through the security gates - openly stated.
She was on the phone, meaning it is possible she couldn't hear the man.
She was stopped from behind with a level of force unknown to us.

Come on, challenge those points.

Even later on when you state:


But this is the United States of America, and battery is a crime.

You are mistaken, you assume this incident is battery when it doesn't have to be. You use of him grabbing her can fall under, duress. Everyone is assuming she was lightly grabbed and over-reacted. But how do you know for sure? Were you her? Were you there? Did you grab her?



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Sure, seattlelaw. Walk into a courtroom and tell the judge that the reason you pulled the trigger and killed the cashier was that you were feeling "less than fresh". See how far that gets you.


Seemed to work for OJ.


No crime committed without intent... "I didn't mean to do it, judge" "Ok, no crime here. You can go."


No, that's not what I'm saying and it's not what odium is saying and I think you know that. I'm saying that she had to have the intent to strike him offensively without any privilege to do so and actually make contact. It's quite possible that the elements of battery here can be made out. The issue for me is, did she touch him with the intent to harm him? If not, no battery. It's not my feeling as a liberal, it's the law and has been since before this nation was stolen from the natives.


How naive.:shk:


I do believe you are the very first person to suggest that I am naive in at least thirty years.


By seattlelaw Some people find the term "lady" pejorative.


By jsobecky And I'm sure you're among them, in your PC based world.


Nah, I use that term pretty often.


By jsobeckyYou seem to have quite an interest in the sex lives of others. Is it because you can't keep on topic, or are you just a naughty little voyeur?


Uncertain. I did watch the Tommy Lee and Pam Anderson video once though. It was entertaining.


By seattlelawAgain with the association with reprehensible criminal conduct. First it's beating infants, now it's molesting them. Are you a neocon by chance?



By jsobecky Nope. I'm American. But I'd bet my bottom dollar that you're a liberal. Now please excuse me; I've got to grill a few infants for lunch.


[You imply that they are mutually exclusive and insinuate that your neocon overlords are unAmerican. Is that wise?] And American's kick butt and take names, right? It's so cool to be American. Wow. Now we dance.


Btw, McKinney struck the officer. She's guilty.


Okidokie. Take her to jail then.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw


I guess you're not from her district? Are you white? What a shock if you are. Like the man said, why don't you bring more to this gun fight then a butter knife or go home.


This is a gun fight?


Well, cowboy, are you from Georgia? Can you prove me wrong? Of course I can't provide written proof of what I claim, as any reporter would be crucified for saying it.

And, next time you try to be condescending - as though I am not credible because I didn't provide a link, think about this - a link isn't as credible as first-hand knowledge. But alas, I'm sure you'll ask for proof of my first-hand knowledge which, of course, no reporter has written about.

So, I'll take my butter knife and go home.


[edit on 4/11/06 by VeeTwin60]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Jsobecky, you need to drop this whole Judge Dread attitude. You're speaking about Jury, Judge and the Judiciary like you have a vast knowledge of it and this line here:

It doesn't change the fact she struck the officer, it does bring into question if it was battery. Battery itself, has to be unlawful and your claims are that a crime was committed.

Battery by definition is unlawful.


Would you like to explain how? Or are you just going off of the media reports, which as I have pointed out state:
You do not have to wear a badge - openly stated by her.
You do not have to go through the security gates - openly stated.
She was on the phone, meaning it is possible she couldn't hear the man.
She was stopped from behind with a level of force unknown to us.

Come on, challenge those points.


There's no challenge, Odium. Those facts are solid, in and of themselves, except for the part about passing through the security gates (metal detectors). My understanding was that the congressmen were allowed to bypass them if they had their pins on ( see excerpt below). Otherwise, what would be the point of having them?


Lawmakers are permitted to skip the security checkpoints if they are wearing a congressional lapel pin that identifies them as an elected official or if they are recognized by the police.
www.foxnews.com...


And you say I'm going by the media reports. Yeah, that's all we have to work with so far. Unless you have some special knowledge of the events?

Battery is a crime by definition. Don't assume that there will be no charges filed - the grand jury has been convened for less than a week.


Everyone is assuming she was lightly grabbed and over-reacted. But how do you know for sure? Were you her? Were you there? Did you grab her


I wasn't there, but two congressional aides were, and they ready to testify against her at the grand jury. That's pretty damning to her case. That is why she apologized, imo. She was trying to backpedal.

The problem is that she has been desperately trying to deflect attention away from herself and onto the officer. She has tried racism. She has tried inappropriate touching. She has tried failure to recognize. She has called two press conferences in one morning. Her apology was tepid and insincere.

When asked if she struck the officer, she glazes over and refuses to answer and tries to talk over the questioner.

She is the one who has blown this far out of proportion.

You expect me to accept all the excuses for her behavior that you put forth. But you refuse to award the same courtesy to me. And you refuse to accept the fact that in the end, it does not mitigate her actions.

I don't want to get into a spitting contest about this. It's not worth it to me - we'll cross swords in many another thread, and I don't want to drag baggage along with me. But I am sincere when I say that in my mind, she is absolutlety guilty in this instance. Whether she gets off with no punishment is irrelevant - after all, OJ was judged not guilty. But she was wrong.


originally posted by seattlelaw
I do believe you are the very first person to suggest that I am naive in at least thirty years.


You'd better get used to it, then, because I doubt it will be the last.


[edit on 11-4-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Although a lot has been said or done, but I think that there are other questions to ask. It's not over yet.

Why is everyone so sure that McKinney's actions were intentional?
Why isn't the cop investigated? Why is everyone readily believing the cop's side? It would be interesting to see his record and his attitudes as well.

Why weren't her calls for racial profiling taken seriously and investigated? I could probably guess the answers.


A grand jury has been convened to answer all these questions, but it has been in session less than a week.

One news report I heard stated that the Capitol police move slowly and cautiously in matters like this, because they realize the gravity of accusing a congressperson. They tend to give them the benefit of the doubt in these cases.

The reason they have not dropped this case, imo, is that Ms. McKinney has fanned the flames with charges of racism, inappropriate touching, etc. Now they may be valid charges - that's what the grand jury is charged to determine.


I want to respond to one of your sources:


In fact, Ms. Lee continues to explain what happens to Congressmembers of color as well as the procedure regarding I.D. pins:


AMY GOODMAN: Has this ever happened to you, where you were not recognized?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE: Oh, on several occasions. And, of course, you have to suffer the indignity and sometimes handle it in a way that you don't care to handle it, because of the fact that you believe that you've served in the United States Congress and that you should be identifiable. So there is merit to the points that she is making. And there certainly may some concerns about securing the Capitol, which we understand has taken a whole different tone after 9/11.


Two reasons I picked out that passage: the characterization of not being recognized as an indignity, and the implication that they are something special because they are congeresswomen.

Indignity points to their whole mindset - it's just a giant chip on their shoulder, waiting to get knocked off. Way overblown.

And being so special that everyone should recognize them reeks of conceit, imo.


I will wait to see the results.

Same here.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeeTwin60

So, I'll take my butter knife and go home.






Bye bye.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

You'd better get used to it, then, because I doubt it will be the last.


I see. Anyone who disagrees with your pronouncements here is naive.

Mein fuhrer, we all stand corrected. Please, continue to expound upon the truths in this world for the benefit of the less fortunate, although unlikely less educated, masses. I wait with baited breath for your next wonderous remark. Praise the heavens for jsobecky, whether male, female or shemale, it matters not.

[edit on 11-4-2006 by seattlelaw]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Lets cut the personal attacks and stick to the topic



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
jsobecky, I thought about what you said in regards to Ms. Lee's comments.


Originally quoted by jsobecky
Two reasons I picked out that passage: the characterization of not being recognized as an indignity, and the implication that they are something special because they are congeresswomen.

Indignity points to their whole mindset - it's just a giant chip on their shoulder, waiting to get knocked off. Way overblown.

And being so special that everyone should recognize them reeks of conceit, imo.


It is fair to say that congresspeople should not rest on their laurels when they get to an important post in society. I would even agree with you that perhaps politicians feel that they are above "regular folk" by virtue of their public persona. It does convey a sense of snobbishness and arrogance that shouldn't be there.

But I respectfully disagree that was Ms. Lee's point. I think that there is another way of seeing the notion of "indignity".

This is what Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee said:


External Source

AMY GOODMAN: Has this ever happened to you, where you were not recognized?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE: Oh, on several occasions. And, of course, you have to suffer the indignity and sometimes handle it in a way that you don't care to handle it, because of the fact that you believe that you've served in the United States Congress and that you should be identifiable. So there is merit to the points that she is making. And there certainly may some concerns about securing the Capitol, which we understand has taken a whole different tone after 9/11.


I know that it is easy to read that Ms. Lee's comments mirror the pomposity of "her status". However, I think she is trying to say that sometimes as a Black woman she is often treated with indignity by certain guards when entering in Congress. The indignity that she suffers is the uncomfortablity and embarassment that occurs when she, as well as other Black people, have to be called out and separated apart in front of other people in order for an extra security check by the police. She also makes the point that it should be easy for the guards to tell herself and other 13 Black congresswomen apart, but sometimes they don't.

She mentions that despite being a Congresswoman and Black, that is not enough for a guard to let her through to Congress. She is not afforded the simple dignity as other congresspeople to just pass through the doors. In the end, she is not trying to be snooty about "not being treated as a Congressperson". She is just trying to highlight that sometimes she is not treated well as a person because of racial prejudice--pin or no pin.

And guards, no matter how good they are, sometimes rely on "racial stereotypes" to do their job. This is separated from their "instincts" about bad and good people. Because of some negative portrayals of African-Americans in the media as well as the news, it would be easier for the guards to do "racial profiling" instead of taking the time to get to know the regular people that enter in a particular building. It doesn't happen all the time. But in some instances, it does occur. Rep. Louis Stokes (D-Ohio) was negatively confronted by a Capitol police guard in an underground parking garage, for example. The Capitol police guard thought he didn't belong there simply because of "mistaken identity". He felt the "indignities" afforded from being "racially profiled".

That same indignity happens to the Black police officers who have filed suit with the U.S. Capitol police office.

And perhaps, that same indignity happened with Ms. McKinney when Neil Boortz called her a "ghetto slut" on the radio or being grabbed on the arm by a cop who might have been confrontational on his part too. That is why the question of "racial profiling" is still being bandied about despite her handling of the issue, good or bad.

No easy answers exist in regards to the situation. It was simply a public, horrible situation that opened up a lot of wounds politically, racially and gender-wise. But I still do not think that Ms. McKinney intended to strike the cop.

That's why I wonder if the cop could have done anything else than yell at her and grab her arm. Is that proper police procedure to grab someone and restrain them quickly? It was an impulse reaction, imho. It would certainly be something else:1) if the cop did not grab her and called politely for her to stop; 2) Ms. McKinney stood there, pausing momentarily as the cop settled down; 3) Then, in a fit of unbridled fury Ms. McKinney hauled off and hit him.

Then, perhaps you could possibly argue that the intent and the mental state of the congresswoman was premeditated in "attacking" the cop. In that hypothetical situation, that would seem more like battery to me. But can you truly say that she possessed the same premeditated thoughts and intent in striking the officer in the actual situation? She would have to think about it all the time and actually plan to assault the cop the next time she saw him in order for battery to happen, don't you think? And until it is made public, she has not made any threatening comments toward law enforcement to further solidify premeditation. That is why you cannot simply say it is battery. There are always extenuating circumstances involved.

Secondly, about the I.D. issue. I am going to highlight once again the words of Ms. Lee, who is a Congresswoman from the state of Texas. She explains the procedure of the I.D. card and the pin. She says that there isn't a particular requirement to wear both:



There is no requirement, by the way, for any member to have an I.D. We do have them. But we may have been rushing from somewhere and not carrying the I.D., and there is no requirement for us to have a pin, which is our identifying pin, which I happen to be wearing at this time. But there is no requirement, as a understand it, for members to have that at this time.


So, Ms. McKinney did not truly break the law on the count of not wearing her pin or the I.D. However, what still stands is what exactly occurred in those seconds she swung around and connected her cell phone with the cop's chest. I think those are the main points of contention that are debatable.











[edit on 12-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
jsobecky, I thought about what you said in regards to Ms. Lee's comments.

But I respectfully disagree that was Ms. Lee's point. I think that there is another way of seeing the notion of "indignity".

This is what Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee said:


External Source

AMY GOODMAN: Has this ever happened to you, where you were not recognized?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE: Oh, on several occasions. And, of course, you have to suffer the indignity and sometimes handle it in a way that you don't care to handle it, because of the fact that you believe that you've served in the United States Congress and that you should be identifiable. So there is merit to the points that she is making. And there certainly may some concerns about securing the Capitol, which we understand has taken a whole different tone after 9/11.


I know that it is easy to read that Ms. Lee's comments mirror the pomposity of "her status". However, I think she is trying to say that sometimes as a Black woman she is often treated with indignity by certain guards when entering in Congress. The indignity that she suffers is the uncomfortablity and embarassment that occurs when she, as well as other Black people, have to be called out and separated apart in front of other people in order for an extra security check by the police. She also makes the point that it should be easy for the guards to tell herself and other 13 Black congresswomen apart, but sometimes they don't.

She mentions that despite being a Congresswoman and Black, that is not enough for a guard to let her through to Congress. She is not afforded the simple dignity as other congresspeople to just pass through the doors. In the end, she is not trying to be snooty about "not being treated as a Congressperson". She is just trying to highlight that sometimes she is not treated well as a person because of racial prejudice--pin or no pin.


OK, ceci, how do we know that she is not offered the same courtesy as other members of congress? Put another way, how do we know that other congresspeople are treated any differently?

I'd be willing to bet that all congresspeople are treated equally.

And them being easier to recognize because they are black can swing both ways: the police could just as easily be accused of racial profiling if they rely on race as a factor.


Rep. Louis Stokes (D-Ohio) was negatively confronted by a Capitol police guard in an underground parking garage, for example. The Capitol police guard thought he didn't belong there simply because of "mistaken identity". He felt the "indignities" afforded from being "racially profiled".


We can't take every instance of a request for ID as a racial insult. The world would grind to a halt. And how do we know that the police woudn't stop a white man wearing a gym suit as "mistaken identity"?

I just don't buy racial profiling in Washington DC. So many nationalities pass through there every hour of every day that the races tend to blur after a whle. Any officer that practices racial profiling would not last long in his job.


That's why I wonder if the cop could have done anything else than yell at her and grab her arm. Is that proper police procedure to grab someone and restrain them quickly?


I would say it is. The only two other things he could have done would be 1) to let her go, unchallenged, or 2) Run fast to jump in front of her to stop her. He did the best thing, imo. And he did it professionally; he called her "ma'am" three times and still she refused to stop.


Secondly, about the I.D. issue. I am going to highlight once again the words of Ms. Lee, who is a Congresswoman from the state of Texas. She explains the procedure of the I.D. card and the pin. She says that there isn't a particular requirement to wear both:



There is no requirement, by the way, for any member to have an I.D. We do have them. But we may have been rushing from somewhere and not carrying the I.D., and there is no requirement for us to have a pin, which is our identifying pin, which I happen to be wearing at this time. But there is no requirement, as a understand it, for members to have that at this time.



The lax policy on wearing the pin is a given. It is not under dispute. But wearing the pin allows them to bypass the metal detectors. If they don't wear the pin, they must pass through the metal detectors. Ms. McKinney did neither:


Lawmakers are permitted to skip the security checkpoints if they are wearing a congressional lapel pin that identifies them as an elected official or if they are recognized by the police.
www.foxnews.com...



In my experience, every time there is an incident regarding security, the end result turns out to be stricter enforcement of stricter policies. Maybe that's what is needed here. No more admission by "facial recognition". Everyone must pass through the metal detectors. Everyone must wear their ID pins, or else be made to sign in at a registry.

The rules are lax to make it easier for busy people to conduct their business. But it only takes one overblown incident like this to ruin it for everyone. If her fellow congresspeople begin to avoid her, Ms. McKinney has only herself to blame.


So, Ms. McKinney did not truly break the law on the count of not wearing her pin or the I.D. However, what still stands is what exactly occurred in those seconds she swung around and connected her cell phone with the cop's chest. I think those are the main points of contention that are debatable.


Yes, and I think that the eyewitness testimony of the two congressional aides will be a determining factor in this issue.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   
jsobecky, do you read your own sources?


Lawmakers are permitted to skip the security checkpoints if they are wearing a congressional lapel pin that identifies them as an elected official or if they are recognized by the police.
www.foxnews.com...


How is she to know they won't recognize her?
If she couldn't hear the man, all that happened was she was grabbed from behind by a stranger without breaking any law...

Your source itself states it.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I do read my own sources, and I saw that passage you refer to. I didn't comment on it because it is an example of lousy security practice. Simple facial recognition is extremely unreliable, and would never be acceptable in any major commercial, financial, or military institution. The only reason I can surmise that it is practiced here is because of the overblown self-importance the legislators like to fancy themselves as enjoying.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
But you can't deny the fact, it is used. Meaning, she didn't have to know they didn't recognize her. This whole thing was blown out of proportion. Both groups should have said sorry, security and McKinney. The problem is, both groups are too stubborn and both have a history of problems.

Instead the media got to spend hours on this as per-normal and not any real issues.
That's freedom of press for you.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Nice post ceci!

You rely upon reason applied to facts whereas others rely upon speculation about what may or may not be an atmosphere of racial bias by the D.C. police - not based upon reports or personal experience, but rather upon conjecture based on nothing.

Those who say 'I'd bet' or 'I doubt' are not contributing much to the dialogue, obviously, but in turning away I will state that I bet there will be no charges brought.

And perhaps then we can focus on those many, many matters of corruption and other significant law breaking in the GOP which are bringing this democracy to its knees.




posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
This whole thing was blown out of proportion. Both groups should have said sorry, security and McKinney. The problem is, both groups are too stubborn and both have a history of problems.

Instead the media got to spend hours on this as per-normal and not any real issues.
That's freedom of press for you.

Ahhh... finally we agree.
I have Fox News on right now; they are showing another car chase. This after an update on the Natalie Holloway case. So it seems that things are returning to normal here in the US.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:08 AM
link   
seattlelaw, thank you very much for your compliments supporting my post. Your words were really thoughtful.


jsobecky,

I thought a lot about your questions today surrounding racial profiling and the treatment of Congressmembers. In fact, the inquiries you made are rather difficult to answer because such treatment can be easily dismissed. It is better to answer your questions by example.

You said:

Originally quoted by jsobecky
We can't take every instance of a request for ID as a racial insult. The world would grind to a halt. And how do we know that the police woudn't stop a white man wearing a gym suit as "mistaken identity"?


We can't know. But suppose a Black cop grabbed the White man wearing a gym suit out of a car and proceeded to hand-cuff him for no reason, racially insult him, hit him with a billy club, detain him and then proceed to lock him up in jail for four hours. Then after all that, the records show "mistaken identity". I'm sure that he would file a lawsuit using the same charges against the Black cop due to "racial profiling". Because serial killers are mostly profiled to be middle-aged, white males (with the exceptions of Aileen Wournos and the D.C. Snipers). And perhaps in the cop's mind, he was thinking that he was apprehending a "serial killer". See how it works?

But knowing that hypotheticals never replace the real thing, I found a story that talks about racial profiling going on right now. For example, The Washington Post just released the article of an African-American martial arts instructor who is suing a Maryland police department for mistaken identity:




washingtonpost.com


An African American martial arts instructor filed a federal lawsuit yesterday against Montgomery County and a county police officer, alleging that he was pulled over and handcuffed because he is black. Terrance Anthony Robinson, 49, was stopped about 10:30 a.m. Jan. 14 on Colesville Road in Silver Spring as he was on his way to his studio, Jow Hop Kuen Gung Fu Academy. The lawsuit is the second in a week against Montgomery police claiming racial profiling.
[...]
Robinson, of Lanham, said in the suit that he did not commit a traffic infraction before being pulled over.Officer Laura Paletto, who stopped him, wrote in an incident report that she was running tags on Columbia Pike and New Hampshire Avenue and stopped Robinson after a search for his tag -- T ROB -- indicated "a wanted hit did come back to the owner of the vehicle."
[...]
Robinson alleges Paletto asked him to step out of his car, frisked him and handcuffed him. He also said he was kept in handcuffs for about an hour and that officers declined initially to tell him why he was being detained.Officers told Robinson that he had an outstanding warrant from Baltimore County, the suit says. Paletto wrote in her report that she later "determined the hit may in fact be for a sound alike and not the actual owner who was wanted." She also wrote that she "explained to Robinson that a mistake was made, apologized, and explained that this incident would be documented."


Before you argue that just stopping one man might be simple police procedure, the martial arts instructor was the second man to be pulled over by police in the area. The first man was an African-American restaurateur. With these two men who are the same color and did not know each other before each incident with the Maryland police, do you see a pattern? Did the police do the right procedures in each case?

In fact, Amnesty USA (a branch of Amnesty International) reports in their study that racial profiling is a factor in life that affects 32 million Americans. The investigation goes on to say this:


amnestyusa.org
As the testimony cited in this report shows, racial profiling occurs in almost every context of people’s lives:

*While driving: A young African-American schoolteacher reports being routinely pulled over in his suburban neighborhood in San Carlos, California, where only five other African-American families live. Native Americans in Oklahoma report being routinely stopped by police because of the tribal tags displayed on their cars. In Texas, a Muslim student of South Asian ancestry is pulled over and asked by police if he is carrying any dead bodies or bombs.

* While walking: In Seattle,Washington, a group of Asian-American youths are detained on a street corner by police for 45 minutes on an allegation of jaywalking. While a sergeant ultimately ordered the officer in question to release them, the young people say they saw whites repeatedly crossing the same street in an illegal manner without being stopped.

* While traveling through airports: An eight-year-old Muslim boy from Tulsa, Oklahoma was reportedly separated from his family while airport security officials searched him and dismantled his Boy Scout pinewood derby car. He is now routinely stopped and searched at airports.

*While shopping: In New York City, an African- American woman shopping for holiday presents was stopped by security at a major department store. She showed the guards her receipts. Nonetheless, she was taken to a holding cell in the building where every other suspect she saw was a person of color. She was subjected to threats and a body search. She was allowed to leave without being charged three hours later, but was not allowed to take her purchases.

* While at home: A Latino family in a Chicago suburb was reportedly awoken at 4:50 a.m. on the day after Father’s Day by nine building inspectors and police officers who prohibited the family from getting dressed or moving about. The authorities reportedly proceeded to search the entire house to find evidence of overcrowding. Enforcement of the zoning ordinance, which was used to justify the search, was reportedly targeted at the rapidly-growing Latino population.

* While traveling to and from places of worship: A Muslim imam from the Dallas area reports being stopped and arrested by police upon leaving a mosque after an outreach event. Officers stopped him, searched his vehicle, arrested him for expired vehicle tags, and confiscated his computer.


With all these examples, I can only say that "racial profiling" is important and it does exist. And yes, it is "special treatment" in the opposite sense of the phrase. You can say that these are all random events. If you put them together, it makes a pretty strong case that people of color are being harrassed by the police for no good reason.



Originally quoted by jsobecky
OK, ceci, how do we know that she is not offered the same courtesy as other members of congress? Put another way, how do we know that other congresspeople are treated any differently?


We don't know. I'm sure on this board people exist who are pages, interns, or perhaps, have served in some capacity in Congress. Those people, whoever they are, could probably paint a better picture on how the U.S. Capitol police treat congresspeople. However, until such a story is revealed, it is the best possible answer to say that in the most equal of worlds, they are treated the same.

In the real world, this is not the case. When the Congressional Black Caucus has previously investigated two other cases between Black congresspeople and the U.S. Capitol police, that institutes a pattern. It might not be a prevalent pattern of abuses. However, add the case of the Indian-American Businessman who was pulled out of the SOTU address, Ms. McKinney's case, as well as the two Black Capitol Police men, that would make six cases involving people of color and the Capitol Police. That waves a warning flag to me.

Especially with Bill Conroy's take on the entire situation with Ms. McKinney:


In an interview on CNN Wednesday night, McKinney’s lawyer confirmed that representatives of the Capitol Police actually met with the Congresswoman in the wake of the “assault” incident to apologize to the Congresswoman. That sure doesn’t sound like the action of a police department that believes one of its own was the victim of an assault – but rather, it seems to me, indicates they were concerned the police officer acted inappropriately.
[...]
Then, an even more revealing moment occurred on the broadcast when the chief of the Capitol Police, Terrance Gainer, admitted on camera that the Capitol police officer struck first by grabbing McKinney as she was attempting to enter the Capitol office building. That’s an amazing concession, because it is evidence that the police officer initiated the “assault” on McKinney, a U.S. Congresswoman, who arguably was caught off guard and might well have reacted instinctively, in self defense, seeking to put distance between herself and a perceived attacker.


And Bill Conroy goes on to say that other Congresspeople, White or Black, male or female, might not be so forthcoming to say whether they were waved in without their I.D.'s or pins because it might prove that Ms. McKinney was not the only one being passed through with "lax rules". How would it look to their constituents? Not good. If that is the case, then the cops are equally guilty of letting other congresspeople through as they are trying to make an example out of Ms. McKinney.

That's why it can't be easily dismissed Ms. McKinney was treated badly by the cop. Her claims might have been valid--as first demonstrated by the apology toward the congresswoman from Terence Gainer, the police chief. And "the cop in question" might have not adequately done his job. Don't you think that the Capitol Police might have been covering their past occurrences up by praising "the cop" at that particular building in the news? Do you think in this case the "honor code" might have been instituted? I sure do.

That's the reason why I am not so quick to condemn her as others have.








[edit on 13-4-2006 by ceci2006]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join