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

jsobecky,

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 consider.

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]

It's not unusual that the report would state only the barest of facts. Other details will be drawn out by grand juries, etc. That's normal.

Until the next installment, I'd like to suggest that it must seem what this topic looks like to some observers:





Thanks to seekerof for the source of the inspirational image, btw.

Originally quoted by jsobecky
It's not unusual that the report would state only the barest of facts. Other details will be drawn out by grand juries, etc. That's normal.

Until the next installment, I'd like to suggest that it must seem what this topic looks like to some observers...

LOL.No joke. It is like beating a dead horse to some people. . And probably some people are thinking, "OMG, will they just stop already?"

But, I just wanted to say that in some reports, the police--when describing a crime committed--do include other facts. Perhaps it has to do with Mr. McKenna himself. His report is just a little too clean and scanty to me. However, I do not know. I just figure it so. But you're right. We'll have to wait for the rest of the story when the grand jury comes back.

Thanks for the new info, btw.



[edit on 20-4-2006 by ceci2006]

Four more congressional aides have been subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury investigating Cynthia McKinney.

WASHINGTON — More House aides have been served with subpoenas to testify in the grand jury investigation of an incident last month where Rep. Cynthia McKinney hit a Capitol Police officer.

Staffers from four congressional offices, in statements read on the House floor Tuesday, announced they would comply with subpoenas issued by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

4More

Adding to her woes, it is being reported that her attorney, James Myart, has quit. This is a surprise, since he had strongly defended her position in the media.

www.cnn.com...

[edit on 26-4-2006 by jsobecky]

jsobecky,

I don't think her attorney quit. The story just said that he didn't "represent" her any more. It didn't say whether she fired him or he left. I'm sure that she has probably gotten other representation by now. It would be sorely lacking for her not to. However, what is more important is that the U.S. Atty. did not charge Ms. McKinney with anything.

As for more people being supeonaed for the case, that only means that they want to re-examine the evidence a bit more. That's all it means. It doesn't penalize her more or less. Perhaps, they might have the "extenuating circumstances". Or not.

Furthermore, what is important to note that Paul McKenna did give his testimony today. And despite what has been said in the police report, he did tell his side of the story. Now, I don't know whether it was meant by CNN in order to gain sympathy for Mr. McKenna. However, what is equally indicting about their slant in this article is that they are still trying to play firestarter with talking about Ms. McKinney's competition in the upcoming Congressional race.

It seems to me that somebody wants Ms. McKinney out--either by losing the election--or by conviction.

[edit on 26-4-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
jsobecky,

I don't think her attorney quit. The story just said that he didn't "represent" her any more. It didn't say whether she fired him or he left. I'm sure that she has probably gotten other representation by now. It would be sorely lacking for her not to. However, what is more important is that the U.S. Atty. did not charge Ms. McKinney with anything.

Whether he quit or was fired, we'll never know for sure. Why is not as relevant as the fact that it happened.

The grand jury has not concluded their investigation, so that is why the US Atty. hasn't issued charges. YET. I wouldn't take that as any points for McKinney's team, tho.

Furthermore, what is important to note that Paul McKenna did give his testimony today. And despite what has been said in the police report, he did tell his side of the story.

Why would they differ?

Now, I don't know whether it was meant by CNN in order to gain sympathy for Mr. McKenna. However, what is equally indicting about their slant in this article is that they are still trying to play firestarter with talking about Ms. McKinney's competition in the upcoming Congressional race.

Well, that's politics and the press.

It seems to me that somebody wants Ms. McKinney out--either by losing the election--or by conviction.

No argument there.

Well...

Something stinks to me here. A number of people have already posted links showing that congress people DON'T HAVE TO WEAR THEIR PINS! Yet, certain people still delight in going on about how she broke the law.

As for the whole incident, who knows? It seems like a reaction to me. But, Cheney "reacts" and shoots a guy in the face, then DOESN'T report it immediately, and it's all good? Wtf?

And jsobecky, wtf was the woman with the baby crap? That was so lame. And, to the others...well, you should be ashamed of yourselves for the crap I read in these pages.

I'd be blasting McKinney for thinking she's above the law, but guess what, she ain't the only one who does this! Big f-in deal! Seems like this flashlight cop was bored and felt like throwing his weight around.

Truth, what stinks is Fascism. It does emit a very foul odor. Google'rumsfeld and flatulence'. You see when you stand up to power in this country 'the fascists' now target you as an undesireable/terrorist and will coerse you into having to defend yourself for the simpliest of matters. Security now becomes a proactive tool. Ms. McKinney has been harrassed repeatedly since she got to congress, and why not she has this silly idea in mind that when she asks a tough question at a Congressional hearing of one of our beloved officials that they would have to answer honestly [it's that whole oath thing]. I would take 400 McKinneys over the complicit whores who run the circus in the house.

Rep. McKinney Won't Be Charged in Scuffle

A grand jury declined to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney on Friday in connection with a confrontation in which she admitted hitting a police officer who tried to stop her from entering a House office building.

The grand jury had been considering the case since shortly after the March 29 incident, which has led to much discussion on Capitol Hill about race and the conduct of lawmakers and the officers who protect them.

"We respect the decision of the grand jury in this difficult matter," said U.S. Attorney Kenneth Wainstein.

McKinney did not immediately comment.

More...

Ta da......

THE END.

[edit on 16-6-2006 by loam]

loam,

I saw it on the news while away on vacation. I am glad that the grand jury had the sense not to charge Ms. McKinney with this supposed "slugging of the cop". It would take someone with common sense to know that she did nothing wrong. And of course, it also takes an incident like this one to incite the amount of antipathy toward the congresswoman not because of what she did, but because of simple animosity and denigration.

Now, Ms. McKinney can possibly get back to conducting the business she was supposed to do instead of fighting off these bogus charges with the capitol cop.

As for him, he has to just get a life and distinguish between a tap and a scuffle.