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.

 

Grand Jury Declines Cynthia McKinney Indictment

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   
A grand jury has declined to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney over an altercation she had with a Capitol Police officer. McKinney admitted to striking the police officer when he grabbed her in a House office building. The officer claimed to not have recognized McKinney and wanted her to pass through the metal detectors at the door. McKinney claims that she is being harassed by Capitol police over her political stances and that she should be recognized after serving for many years as Representative of Georgia.
 



news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - A grand jury declined Friday to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney 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.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Thank God the opponents of Cynthia McKinney didn't get their chance to indict her for this altercation. Just look at the photo used in that article for crying out loud. They are trying to make her look like a wild woman, why? Whats their agenda? Who told them to use that photo?

I don't believe there are many honest and moral politicians left any more. Within American politics I would say Cynthia McKinney and Ron Paul are the only decent people left.

To continue to harass and harry McKinney because of her politics is atrocious. I ask people how they would feel if they were in her position. She has been a member of Congress for years and while the rest of the representatives get waved through without any fuss she constantly gets stopped and asked to provide ID. Why? Because she vehemently opposed the Iraq war and demands a new 9/11 inquiry because she believes the whole truth has not come out.

You would find that her position on those issues is supported by a clear majority of Americans yet she is persecuted for it by her peers and the Capitol police. Even her own party refused to give her seniority back when she won back her post after being the victim of dirty politics. Is she that much of a threat to the fat cat, corrupt career sycophants in government that they have to get rid of her at any cost?

All I can say is people like her and Ron Paul are whats needed in today's World. With more politicians like them we could have a chance of making a just society.

[edit on 16/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Shes also the one calling for all government records about Tupac Shakur to be released. She apparently believe they have info about his death. After looking some in the Freedom and Information Act archives about tupac, I cant blame her. They have info of him being harrassed by a certain group whos activity went like this:
Make an anonymous death threat call to him, then later offer him protection from the person who called the death threat in. And everytime he started to think he didnt need protection they would make another death threat. Then he stopped going for it, the files end there.


Personally I agree that McKinney is one of the only decent ones left and something is up.
She stands up for the things she believes in but more importantly things people think are important, and I think thats pretty commendable.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
If this nut case doesn't go to jail for her actions then it is time to close the doors and kick all the congress out into the street, This is simple racisim at work. Black worship at its worst.

mod edit, non-ATSNN word choices

[edit on 16-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Thank God the opponents of Cynthia McKinney didn't get their chance to indict her for this altercation. Just look at the photo used in that article for crying out loud. They are trying to make her look like a wild woman, why? Whats their agenda? Who told them to use that photo?

Well, it's her fault for looking like a jackass. The photo merely captured the "true" Cindy.


To continue to harass and harry McKinney because of her politics is atrocious.

Nobody is harassing her because of her politics. You are trying to steer the debate away from the real issue, which is that she committed assault on a Capitol Police officer because she is immature and self-aggrandizing.

Please stop creating straw man arguments.



I ask people how they would feel if they were in her position. She has been a member of Congress for years and while the rest of the representatives get waved through without any fuss she constantly gets stopped and asked to provide ID. Why? Because she vehemently opposed the Iraq war and demands a new 9/11 inquiry because she believes the whole truth has not come out.

You would think that maybe she would learn to wear her pin. She's just too stupid to do so. Poor genetics, methinks.


You would find that her position on those issues is supported by a clear majority of Americans yet she is persecuted for it by her peers and the Capitol police.


"Clear majority". Riiight...
Sez you.
And the Capitol Police have a political agenda. Riiight....



Even her own party refused to give her seniority back when she won back her post after being the victim of dirty politics.

Well, maybe that should tell her something, shouldn't it?



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Well, it's her fault for looking like a jackass. The photo merely captured the "true" Cindy.

Nobody is harassing her because of her politics. You are trying to steer the debate away from the real issue, which is that she committed assault on a Capitol Police officer because she is immature and self-aggrandizing.

Please stop creating straw man arguments.

You would think that maybe she would learn to wear her pin. She's just too stupid to do so. Poor genetics, methinks.

Well, maybe that should tell her something, shouldn't it?


I find this to be exactly the same venom that others spew against the president that offends you so, jsobecky.


I have some pictures of the president looking like a monkey, does that mean he is one?


"Clear majority". Riiight...
Sez you.
And the Capitol Police have a political agenda. Riiight....


No, but it definitely sounds like you do. As I said before, this is the same venom that you accuse others of spewing at the president, and it seems to me that you would not do such a thing to afford yourself more credibility.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
You would think that maybe she would learn to wear her pin. She's just too stupid to do so. Poor genetics, methinks.

Poor genetics? How familiar are you with Rep. McKinney's genetics jsobecky? What did you base that insult on? Can I hazzard a guess? Can I also hazzard another guess based on your insult?


niteboy82, you said everything else I was going to say. Nice work!



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Conspiracies aside, she assaulted a Police Officer and should have to answer for that.

It was politics that caused the Grand jury to not return an indictment, that much is obvious to a blind man.

A crime is a crime is a crime and one who commits a crime is by definition a criminal. So tout her qualifications all that you want to, she is a criminal that got away with her crime.

ps. I have no idea where her politics are aligned and do not really care, they are completely irrelevant to her assault. As is her standing on Tupac. Why not open the Elvis case as well. Wasn't he just seen in Vegas again?



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
A crime is a crime is a crime and one who commits a crime is by definition a criminal.


Not necessarily. I believe there were extenuating circumstances. In other words, as she was rushing to work, a man ran up behind her and grabbed her. She punched him. I would, too! In fact, I would have done more than punch.


Now, I'm not sure that's exactly how it happened, but it's highly possible.

We don't know all the circumstances of this case. But a Grand Jury, who heard both sides of the story, made an informed decision, which is something we don't have the opportunity to do.

She may be guilty. She may have knowingly assaulted a police officer, but apparently the Grand Jury didn't think so.

I hated the way she used race and gender in her argument. I'm very against that. And I also agree that if she has a history of being detained, she should damn well wear her pin.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, it's her fault for looking like a jackass. The photo merely captured the "true" Cindy.


You mean like these?










posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Conspiracies aside, she assaulted a Police Officer and should have to answer for that.


Yes, it does sound a bit sketchy as to what happen.



It was politics that caused the Grand jury to not return an indictment, that much is obvious to a blind man.


maybe, I haven't really seen much about what happen at the actual confrontation in detail. Maybe we aren't hearing everything that went on at the incident?



A crime is a crime is a crime and one who commits a crime is by definition a criminal. So tout her qualifications all that you want to, she is a criminal that got away with her crime.


I think we are judging a bit too early to say what happen. Unless you can show me where the incident was documented detail for detail, I cant even say what happen at the incident. But yes if he just grabbed her arm and she immediately punched him or something without anything in between, I would say shes in the wrong for sure.



ps. I have no idea where her politics are aligned and do not really care, they are completely irrelevant to her assault. As is her standing on Tupac. Why not open the Elvis case as well. Wasn't he just seen in Vegas again?


Well I just brought it up because thats where I knew her name from. Well Elvis didnt get killed in a drive by where the police didn't bother to investigate it, then find a cop some what involved that says "if I could tell you who kill the man, I wouldn't" Then further more His security guard gives an interview talking about how he was told by his superior not to bring any gun with him, when that had never happened before. Security on the car was set up perfectly for tupac to not only be shot, but not be able to escape while it was happening. Ive done my fair share of research about it and I see a conspiracy.

He was the worst entertainment political enemy, and there was definately motive. There are government files about him which are classified relating to his death...I want to see them because this guy is the sole reason Im even politically aware today. If I didnt grow up on his music, I wouldnt be even on this site. So to me its important to find out what they know, and if they know why the cops didnt investigate properly.(they got a lawsuit filed against them because of it were they were found guilty of not investigating it, thus letting the murders get away.)



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Unless you can show me where the incident was documented detail for detail,


At best, there is only this:



Pretty weak, if you ask me.

I found this interesting:




A source said an officer, who says Rep. Cynthia McKinney struck him in the chest with a closed fist, knew who she was, and claims the incident has caused infighting among U.S. Capitol Police.

The source, who is close to the ongoing grand jury investigation of the March 29 scuffle, said Paul McKenna, a third year officer in the U.S. Capitol Police, was given a picture of the congresswoman in training.

"No one believes that a man with a name that similar to hers would not know who she is," the source told Redding News Review. "He clearly knew who she was and what she looked like but stopped her anyway."

More...

Source.



[edit on 17-6-2006 by loam]



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
That detail is very weak. Thats pretty BS if you ask me. ALSO I want to know if he grabbed her from behind or from front. If he did it from behind then she may not have even known he was police. I know if some one grabbed me from behind and went to swing me around, then I see a face I didnt know Id probably take a swing. ESPECIALLY in her position. I would think it would be a reaction to some.

If she was aware he was a cop, stopped from the front, and still hit him, thats different. The details are very sketchy, I dont like yahoo news though. They are pretty racist. Remember katrina. white guy was "taking stuff to survive" black guy was "looting a convience store". How appropriate from yahoo news to post that picture too. Yahoo and Fox...I wonder if the same people own them?



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
It was politics that caused the Grand jury to not return an indictment, that much is obvious to a blind man.
...
ps. I have no idea where her politics are aligned and do not really care..


Wait, so if you have no idea of her politics, how are you so sure that it was politics that influenced the Grand Jury? You don't care about her politics, but you just KNOW that the GJ is politically motivated?

Bah!



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
There is no excuse for what she did. They should have charged her with battery or simple assault for just hitting the officer, that is what happens too John or Jane Q public. Why should she be allowed to get away from it when others are not?

The fact that the officer knew what she looked like is not relevant here, she is not immune from being stopped and questioned no one is.

Lately there appears to be a pattern of incidents like this. Kennedy got away with DUI, yet if it were you or me we would have been charged, but that was not the case in either incident. :shk:

I am also willing to bet had she been a conservative the other side would be screaming for her arrest.

If it were me I would have thrown the book at her.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
...that is what happens too John or Jane Q public. Why should she be allowed to get away from it when others are not?


Apparently, some percentage of John or Jane Q public don't get arrested...



In 2004, the FBI collected data from 10,459 law enforcement agencies that provided services to nearly 226 million persons (76.8 percent of the Nation’s population). The participating law enforcement agencies employed 499,396 officers, and of these, 59,373 were assaulted while performing their duties, a rate of 11.9 assaults per 100 officers. The assaults resulted in injuries to 16,563 of these officers...

Clearances

Law enforcement may clear offenses either by arrest or by exceptional means, i.e., when elements beyond the control of law enforcement prevent the placing of formal charges against the offender. In 2004, law enforcement agencies cleared 87.5 percent of the 59,373 assaults on their officers. By circumstance, these agencies cleared the greatest percentage, 89 percent, of assaults on officers who were responding to disturbance calls (family quarrels, bar fights, etc.). The circumstance with the lowest percentage of clearances, 66.7 percent, was ambush situations. (See Table 66.)


2004 LOEKA Data.




Source.

[edit on 17-6-2006 by loam]



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by semperfortis
A crime is a crime is a crime and one who commits a crime is by definition a criminal.


Not necessarily. I believe there were extenuating circumstances. In other words, as she was rushing to work, a man ran up behind her and grabbed her. She punched him. I would, too! In fact, I would have done more than punch.


Now, I'm not sure that's exactly how it happened, but it's highly possible.

We don't know all the circumstances of this case. But a Grand Jury, who heard both sides of the story, made an informed decision, which is something we don't have the opportunity to do.

She may be guilty. She may have knowingly assaulted a police officer, but apparently the Grand Jury didn't think so.

I hated the way she used race and gender in her argument. I'm very against that. And I also agree that if she has a history of being detained, she should damn well wear her pin.


I can not argue that.

The Grand Jury made a decision and they have ruled against me before too. But that is why the Grand Jury is made up of civilians, so that there is a much less chance of showing any partisanship.

Though I think she was wrong, I would being in the position I am in, but the simple fact is as you have stated it BH, the Grand Jury did not think so, so again, it is what it is.

Semper



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by shots
...that is what happens too John or Jane Q public. Why should she be allowed to get away from it when others are not?


Apparently, some percentage of John or Jane Q public don't get arrested...



In 2004, the FBI collected data from 10,459 law enforcement agencies that provided services to nearly 226 million persons (76.8 percent of the Nation’s population). The participating law enforcement agencies employed 499,396 officers, and of these, 59,373 were assaulted while performing their duties, a rate of 11.9 assaults per 100 officers. The assaults resulted in injuries to 16,563 of these officers...

Clearances

Law enforcement may clear offenses either by arrest or by exceptional means, i.e., when elements beyond the control of law enforcement prevent the placing of formal charges against the offender. In 2004, law enforcement agencies cleared 87.5 percent of the 59,373 assaults on their officers. By circumstance, these agencies cleared the greatest percentage, 89 percent, of assaults on officers who were responding to disturbance calls (family quarrels, bar fights, etc.). The circumstance with the lowest percentage of clearances, 66.7 percent, was ambush situations. (See Table 66.)


2004 LOEKA Data.




Loam,

What's the point you are making here?

Given the following statement from your source:

Law enforcement may clear offenses either by arrest or by exceptional means...
(my emphasis,) what are you saying here? In this context and in your chart, assaults "cleared" by arrest were not distiguished from assaults "cleared" by "exceptional means." The only people that we can say for certain were not arrested (from your chart, anyway) are the criminals that assaulted police and then got away clean! You're not endorsing that sort of activity, are you?

It appears to anyone that bothers to carefully read your post that you are just throwing random information out there without really looking at what it says in some strange attempt to stand up for an egocentric elitist idiot that thinks she's better than everyone else, including her peers in Congress!

How dare the Capitol Police attempt to ensure that people making entry into the Capitol building actually have some sort of business there! The Capitol police, in your estimation, should ignore the very laws that the Congress passed - just on the other side of the entry they're posted at!

No matter what, the cop, as usual, gets the short end of the political schtick.

Harte



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I agree BH, the only thing that got me skeptical after hearing and seen her side of the story and pictures is the way in which she used the racial issue for her advantage.

Hell the next time I get in trouble I guess I should pull my Latino card race to get me off of it.


BTW I would punch anybody that tries to grab me without concent.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Loam,

What's the point you are making here?

Given the following statement from your source:

Law enforcement may clear offenses either by arrest or by exceptional means...
(my emphasis,) what are you saying here? In this context and in your chart, assaults "cleared" by arrest were not distiguished from assaults "cleared" by "exceptional means."


*sigh*

The remaining percentages represent those who were NOT arrested by decision of law enforcement. I figured people could do their own math.


Originally posted by Harte
The only people that we can say for certain were not arrested (from your chart, anyway) are the criminals that assaulted police and then got away clean!


Wrong.

Moreover, you fail to understand what "cleared" means:

From another source:




A crime is considered cleared if someone is charged with the crime or if someone is believed to have committed the crime but for some reason (e.g., the death of the suspect, unwillingness of the victim to prosecute) an arrest cannot be made.

Source.



Those who got 'away' are represented along with the arrest numbers, because "an arrest could NOT be made"...


Originally posted by Harte
You're not endorsing that sort of activity, are you?




What is it with people on this board, lately? :shk:


Originally posted by Harte
It appears to anyone that bothers to carefully read your post that you are just throwing random information out there without really looking at what it says...


My thoughts about you exactly...


Originally posted by Harte
...in some strange attempt to stand up for an egocentric elitist idiot that thinks she's better than everyone else, including her peers in Congress!


Quoting it, so we don't miss what your perspective is....



Originally posted by Harte
How dare the Capitol Police attempt to ensure that people making entry into the Capitol building actually have some sort of business there! The Capitol police, in your estimation, should ignore the very laws that the Congress passed - just on the other side of the entry they're posted at!

No matter what, the cop, as usual, gets the short end of the political schtick.

Harte


You can read my comments on that, here.

Nice chattin' with ya...


[edit on 17-6-2006 by loam]



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
She lost her cool after systematic victimization and harrassment. She shouldnt of done what she did and she publically apologized for it. However, because of said systematic victimiztion and harrassment she was not indicted because it constituted extenuating circumstances.

Can any of you that are literally baying for blood over this issue honestly say that, after years of repeated harrassment in which you are made to show your ID every single time you enter the same building day in day out that you wouldnt just snap? I know I would and judging by some of you guys tempers here I would safely bet you would too.

You have to understand that every other congressman or woman is waved through security on sight by Capitol police with the single exception of McKinney. She is being harrassed because she is highly critical of dubious Bush administration policies. The establishment thought they got rid of her when she lost her seat but she won it back and they are pissed. They are trying to intimidate and harrass her into leaving office, this is a symptom of that systematic victimization, and the Grand Jury saw that. Bad luck, better luck next time.

[edit on 17/6/06 by subz]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join