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: 10
1
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
It is by no means partisan.

Just correcting wrong information and informing those who apparently do not know.

It's just all about a criminal, her actions and the political environment that allows her to continue.
Simple



Originally posted by semperfortis
Again the liberal talking points being brought out to defend an obvious and blatant infraction by one of your own. SIGHHH

Tell it to the judge, or not as it were.




posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally quoted by semperfortis
It's just all about a criminal, her actions and the political environment that allows her to continue.
Simple


Now this is the type of statement that bothers me when discussing the issue about Ms. McKinney. What makes you so sure that she is a criminal? Does she have a pattern of assaulting the police?

She has had her day in court. And yes, the grand jury did not decide to indict her. But you still think she is a criminal. For shame. Like anyone else going forth a court of law, Ms. McKinney is innocent until proven guilty (However, with your forays into law and order, I wonder if there been a change to this concept the rest of us do not know about.).

And I still ask, if the jury was filled with cops and they voted not to indict her, would that make the verdict more believable?

But then again, knowing that there is corruption by police that is well documented across the country, I still think that this ought to be mentioned.

After all, police reports--even though they are written with the "straight facts" probably the majority of the time--can be manipulated by the officer. Who's to say that the officer (Paul McKenna) writing this report is being fair and just in his reportage of what happened? What makes him more believable than Ms. McKinney?

And why if it was a charge of battery (or assault for that matter) did the officer (Paul McKenna) not mention the extent of his injuries? Because there was none.

A strike is not always a strike.


[edit on 28-6-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
A battery requires no injury.
Nor does an Assault require touching.

Facts are facts.

She admitted to "striking" him, that's an Assault with Battery. Look it up in Blacks Law Dictionary. (Yes the universally accepted source, unless you doubt that)

So she committed a crime by her own admission, thus a criminal. (one who commits a crime)(also in Blacks)

Just trying to be factual.


In that statement she expresses regret for slapping a police officer who stopped her at a security check point.

Source: www.wsbtv.com...

Semper



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Okay. Let's see what Black's Law says about assault and battery:



battery, n. 1. Criminal law. The use of force against another, resulting in harmful or offensive contact. Battery is a misdemeanor under most modern statutes.

Garner, Bryan A., Ed. Black's Law Dictionary Second Pocket Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 2001: 63.

assault,n. 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 ammounting to an attempt or threat to commit battery. 2. Criminal law An attempt to commit battery, requiring the specific intent to cause physical injury. 3. Loosely, a battery. 4. Popularly, any attack.

assault and battery. Loosely, a criminal battery. See BATTERY.

Garner, Bryan A., Ed. Black's Law Dictionary Second Pocket Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 2001: 45-6.

criminal, n.1. One who has committed a criminal offense. 2. One who has been convicted of a crime.

Garner, Bryan A., Ed. Black's Law Dictionary Second Pocket Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 2001: 163.


You were saying? Where is it in this definition about a "criminal" does it say admission of a crime?

In the police report, where was the "reasonable fear or apprehension of immediate battery"? Where was the "threat to commit battery" found within the police report?

Since you are so knowledgable please point this out what's missing in these definitions within Black's Law dictionary.






[edit on 29-6-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 04:39 AM
link   
YOU posted it yourself. HAHAHAHAHAHA

SHE committed battery by her own admission, "Offensive Touching."

SHE committed a Crime, but YOUR definition, thus making her a criminal.

SHE committed an Assault, by YOUR posted definition. HAHAHAHAHA

And let's not forget that all of this is a FELONY, when done to a Law Enforcement Officer.

Ceci, did you not get enough sleep last night? It's is not like you to slip up this bad.

Semper



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I may not have gotten enough sleep last night, but I know well enough to look within the pages of Black's Law Dictionary.

My questions were still not answered. And I think that there is no definition regarding an admission of guilt when making one a criminal.

Just because she said "offensive touching" does not mean she implicated herself in a crime.

She wasn't charged with a felony. She only went in front of a grand jury to investigate what had happened between herself and Paul McKenna. No charges were filed. She was not indicted.

It seems that we all need a little more sleep before answering.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
You're both right, at a certain level:

criminal, n.1. One who has committed a criminal offense. 2. One who has been convicted of a crime.

Both apply by your definitions, she committed a crime BUT was NOT convicted.

Can we move on now?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
This is ridiculous.

First, we have Becky get on here and run his mouth about bad genes, like he's an expert in human genetics.


Then, we have people on here talking about McKinney's hair and dress, her look, basically. Give me a f-in break. You have any idea how many people in politics look like total douches? Brit Hume, Bill Kristol, Condy Rice, Bill O Reilly...

Who are you to clown her on her hair style? Get outta here with that.
A woman turns around and strikes a pig in the chest with a celly and it's "oh, no, FELONY, lock her up!!!" But, a man shoots another man in the FACE with a shotty, DOESN'T immediately report it, and it's "well, it was an accident, no harm there."

What a crock of feces.


And, BTW, I DON'T find McKinney attractive. She's like a 3, maybe a 4 tops.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Now that lent a lot to the discussion, truthseeka.


Oh, and btw, the name is jsobecky.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Three of the four people you listed are not politicians, truthseeka.


All 4 have one thing in common, however. It didn't go unnoticed that you chose only people with conservative views.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
WOW

What an analogy, a hunting accident compared to an Assault on a Police Officer.

Now that is a Morning Stretch.

Semper



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
After reading the last several pages of this thread, and the number of posts mods have made about this thread, I think it is time to close it.

If there are no new on-topic thoughts to add, I will put an end to this tired debate.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]


df1

posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
What an analogy, a hunting accident compared to an Assault on a Police Officer.

A shooting versus illegal touching is my take on the 2 events. Mckinney was investigated and a grand jury did not charge her with any crime. Whereas in the case of cheney we dont know if it was hunting accident or not, because no credible investigation was conducted. The vp being given preferential treatment is of more concern to me than the illegal touching of a cop.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
A shooting versus illegal touching is my take on the 2 events.


An accident versus an intentional assault is my take on the two events.


Whereas in the case of cheney we dont know if it was hunting accident or not, because no credible investigation was conducted. The vp being given preferential treatment is of more concern to me than the illegal touching of a cop.

Incorrect. The Kenedy County Sheriff's office conducted an investigation. The press was notified. That's preferential treatment?

www.forbes.com...

I only bring up the above to show you the error in your thinking. Because this thread is about Cynthia McKinney, not Dick Cheney.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 04:51 AM
link   
I met Cynthia McKinney the other night in london. I even got to ask her a 9/11 question that she didn't really answer in any great detail..

The video is here.. www.youtube.com...

She came up the pub after and even headed off for a Kebab when the pub shut. Very approachable and not afraid to say what she thinks.

I will no doubt podcast the audio when i get the time..



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join