I read the article and the police report. And here what the description in the police report states:
McKenna Police Report.pdf
On 3-29-06, at approximately 0855 hrs. C-1 whilte performing his official duties as United States Capitol Police Officer and in full uniform, stated
that he was physically assaulted by S-1. S-1 struck C-1 in his chest with a closed fist.
It shows that Ms. McKinney struck Mr. McKenna. I do expect in a police report (as well as from the spokesperson of the U.S. Capitol Police), to say
that the officer was "doing his job" while he was "physically assaulted" with a "closed fist". Why wouldn't the police report mention any of
the extenuating circumstances that might have gone along with that assault? Perhaps, to make the police officer seem "pure as the driven snow?" Why
wouldn't they bring up any other incidents that might have happened? Perhaps that would give Ms. McKinney's claims more credit?
Before you think that I'm in denial, I agree with you that this proves you were right. She indeed hit him. But there are still discrepancies to
I still think that she acted on impulse. Because by the lack of information in the report, it allegedly forgot to mention that Mr. McKenna grabbed
her. But it was quite nice of the officer not to state that he was "assaulted by a deadly weapon"--Ms. McKinney's cell phone.
Nor did the
police report state the circumstances which led to the "altercation" as CNN puts it. And of course, it did not state that Ms. McKinney was on her
way to perform her "official duties" as a congresswoman. It also did not note the degree of force used in the hit. Or how the officer was injured
by her supposed "physical assault". The report did state that Mr. McKenna is White and male. The statement also made sure to list Ms. McKinney's
racial and physical characteristics in the police report.
However, by looking at Black's Law Dictionary
, 2nd pocket ed., 2001, it states assault aptly:
Garner, Bryan A., ed. Black's Law Dictionary. 2nd. pocket ed. St. Paul, MINN: West Group, 2001.
1.Criminal & tort law. The threat or use of force on another that causes that person to have a reasonable apprehension of imminent
harmful or offensive contact; the act of putting another person in reasonable fear or apprehension of an immediate battery by means of an act
amounting to an attempt or threat to commit a battery. 2.Criminal law. An attempt to commit battery, requiring the specific intent to
cause physical injury. (45)
I still doubt that Ms. McKinney had any "specific intent" to cause physical injury. This is something else that the report does not mention. But,
if we are to go by physical assault, the law does state that there was a "use of force" that "causes that person [the cop] to have a reasonable
apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact". But the psychological distress that the cop supposedly had from Ms. McKinney's hit was not
mentioned. I doubt that the cop was harmed at all by her actions. However, what remains is the offense that she struck a cop.
If Mr. McKenna did mention any physical injuries or psychological distress, how would that make him look? Like he wasn't capable of doing his job.
And of course, we wouldn't want that to happen to police in the post 9/11 world, would we?
The problem is that the nothing of note happened to the cop except for the action that Ms. McKinney swung around and struck him with her cell phone
(hence, the closed fist). The report eliminates the fact that the cop tried to grab her--which precipitated the "physical assault". That
demonstrates the lack of intent on Ms. McKinney's part of trying to hurt the cop. The report did not mention that she insulted him or threatened his
life. She did not do that in the first place. So, I do not see how Mr. McKenna would feel threated by Ms. McKinney's actions. But in his
interpretation of events, he called it "physical assault".
In my most cynical of moods, I'd call the police report's use of that term politically motivated and backed.
Now, things would be different if Ms. McKinney socked the cop in the eye, called him a derogatory name and then the cop--crushed by the ill-treatment
of law enforcement--crumpled down to the floor to cry in a pool of tears. That is physical and verbal assault.
But not by what the report states. It just seems to me that CNN wants to be a firestarter in this situation taking FOX along for the ride. They want
to continue the drumbeat that Ms. McKinney, so to speak, is "box office poisin" and that everyone should treat her like a criminal. It still makes
me wonder if this is a greater effort to punish her by using the law politically instead of judicially.
Looking at the way things will go--with the sentiment of 9/11 following supporting the actions of law enforcement, the book will be thrown at her.
[edit on 20-4-2006 by ceci2006]