Grand Jury Declines Cynthia McKinney Indictment

Originally posted by subz
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.

On this I agree with you still I am skeptical of the way she played the injured victim.

But taking into consideration what has been happening to those that are publicly against the Bush administration I have to give her some credit.

From spies, to generals to government officials they all at the mercy of the wrath of the administration revenge.

A minor point, but....



Isn't it interesting that the date and time of the incident and report are the same?

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

You may *sigh* all you wish. I'm sorry, but what you say (above) is just not so. There is no delineation between those not charged for some other reason. Your own second definition of "cleared" says that a crime can be cleared through "exceptional means," including "unwillingness of the victim to prosecute." In the cases you cite, this victim is the officer. So "by the decision of law enforcement..." is included in those cleared numbers.

Originally posted by loam

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"...

No, that's not so, as I said above. I believe you failed to understand what "get away clean" means. No crime can be "cleared" if no suspect was ever even caught, or at the very least, charged. The lack of a suspect in hand or at least in name does not preclude the fact that a crime has been committed and reported. So, there are crimes reported in your statistics for which no suspect was identified, yet here you claim these crimes have been "cleared." It don't work that way.

The statistics you provided do not indicate in any way how many people in that statistical population actually committed assault but were not charged.

However, just so we're clear here, I do understand what you are saying, and certainly I would agree that people do get away with assaulting police officers due to their political (or other) connections. McKinney is obviously one of these people. That is not to say that it is right. It just isn't usually done by people that are in the public eye.

Originally posted by loam

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 loamQuoting 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.

I have read your comments on that, and I suspect you are a contrarian. Seems darn cut and dried to me. But like I said, people do get away with assaulting police officers. Unfortunately, despite your claims, you have yet to provide any numbers reflecting the percentage of people that do so. These numbers might not be readily available though.

Harte

So a woman who was walking and grabbed from behind by a stranger should let the man have the second he needs to knife her or molest her? She defended herself from what she thought was an attack from behind. If a strange man came up from behind and grabbed me he would have a lot more to worry about then a punch to a chest as he chocked on his testicles after I kicked them into his throat.

Originally posted by Harte
You may *sigh* all you wish. I'm sorry, but what you say (above) is just not so. There is no delineation between those not charged for some other reason. Your own second definition of "cleared" says that a crime can be cleared through "exceptional means," including "unwillingness of the victim to prosecute." In the cases you cite, this victim is the officer. So "by the decision of law enforcement..." is included in those cleared numbers.

It appears neither one of us is fully correct.


UCR Handbook.

So, in other words, the remaining percentage would include both examples where a decision by law enforcement would be made and where the guy got away...

Originally posted by Harte
The statistics you provided do not indicate in any way how many people in that statistical population actually committed assault but were not charged.

Now that the definition is clearer, I agree that the remaining percentage does not indicate what percentage of those are made by law enforcement determining "there was not enough information to support an arrest, charge, and turning over to the court for prosecution."

Originally posted by Harte
However, just so we're clear here, I do understand what you are saying, and certainly I would agree that people do get away with assaulting police officers due to their political (or other) connections.

So, in other words, you believe it the case that if you don't have political connections, you NEVER get away with it, so to speak?

Ask any court clerk how often assault or resisting arrest charges are ultimately dropped... It's a very frequent occurrence. Surely, not all of those are because the accused are politically connected.

Originally posted by Harte
I have read your comments on that, and I suspect you are a contrarian. Seems darn cut and dried to me.

You know me so well.

Originally posted by loam
A minor point, but....

Isn't it interesting that the date and time of the incident and report are the same?

That is standard procedure. The only time it is different is when the crime is "discovered" after the fact and the report is made. If the crime is in the presence of the Officer, those dates and times will be the same.

Semper

Grand Jury Declines Cynthia McKinney Indictment

They're just discriminating against her because she's black.

Originally posted by Majic
Grand Jury Declines Cynthia McKinney Indictment

They're just discriminating against her because she's black.

Now that there is funny...

I don't care who you are.

Git Er Done!!!!

Thanks for the clarification, semperfortis.

And, Majic, thanks for the full belly laugh... What a great way to end my evening....

Originally posted by Majic
Grand Jury Declines Cynthia McKinney Indictment

They're just discriminating against her because she's black.

Majic, do you really believe that? Seriously?

double post

[edit on 18-6-2006 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by niteboy82

Originally posted by jsobecky

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

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

It was not me who raised this issue, niteboy:

from subz
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?

"Clear majority". Riiight...

Sez you.

And the Capitol Police have a political agenda. Riiight....

No, but it definitely sounds like you do.

Once again, it was not me who raised this issue:

from subz
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.

You keep attacking me because I respond to other members who make claims. Why is that?

Cynthia McKinney struck a Capitol police officer because he attempted to stop her and ask for identification.

He grabbed her shoulder to get her attention, because she ignored his calls for her to stop.

She was not wearing her ID pin.

She thinks that she is special enough that the world should know who she is, and allow her unchallenged passage throught whatever gates she wants to pass through.

She is permitted to physically attack anyone who challenges her, according to her proponents.

If the Capitol Police challenge her, it is because they are racist.

Do I have all her arguments in hand?

Help me to understand.

Originally posted by jsobecky
It was not me who raised this issue, niteboy:

So when you continue on the same thought, it is ok because it is someone else's words and I shouldn't respond to yours?

Once again, it was not me who raised this issue:

Again, you are the one went along with it again, so apparently you really feel like it is not your problem to say something if someone else says it first.

You keep attacking me because I respond to other members who make claims. Why is that?

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I will make sure for now on that it doesn't appear that way to you. I am not meaning to attack you at all, jsobecky. That is not my intention, I don't want to attack anyone. At the same time, I cannot help if some people feel attacked when I respond to their postings, if I respond to those postings in a calm way. If I had responded to subz, instead of you, would you have posted this saying that I attacked subz?

Originally posted by jsobecky
Cynthia McKinney struck a Capitol police officer because he attempted to stop her and ask for identification.

He grabbed her shoulder to get her attention, because she ignored his calls for her to stop.

She was not wearing her ID pin.

She thinks that she is special enough that the world should know who she is, and allow her unchallenged passage throught whatever gates she wants to pass through.

She is permitted to physically attack anyone who challenges her, according to her proponents.

If the Capitol Police challenge her, it is because they are racist.

Do I have all her arguments in hand?

Help me to understand.

I don't know about the Police Officer, but I had no idea who she was until this incident.

It seems very clear to me, she broke the law and the Police Officer should have cuffed and stuffed her at that time. he did not and it went to the Grand Jury. They did what civilians always do, voted. Why they voted the way they did, is always a mystery with the GJ, yet I guess that is why it is set up, let the people decide. I don't agree, but I am not the DA.

Originally posted by jsobecky
It was not me who raised this issue, niteboy:

[snip]

You keep attacking me because I respond to other members who make claims. Why is that?

I only asked why they showed that specific picture. You ventured the explaination that it shows the "true Cindy" all by yourself. That is what niteboy was responding to, your explaination. He said that the pictures of George W Bush that show him looking like a chimp must also be equally as pertinent to their actual character. Take some responsibility for what you write.

Speaking of which, no reply to defend your blatantly obvious racial slur?

Originally posted by jsobecky
Do I have all her arguments in hand?

Help me to understand.

Not quite, you're missing the fact that even when she was wearing her pin she was still stopped at the door every single time. No other congressman or woman was subjected to this harrassment. After years of enduring this politically motivated victimization she lost her cool and acted inappropriately. She admitted as much and apologized for it.

The court recognized these extenuating circumstances, with regards to the victimization, and decided not to indict her.

Now, she did play the race and gender card which I dont believe had any bearing on her very real accusation of victimization. She is being victimized, but not because she is black and not because she is female. She is victimized because she doesnt tow the Democratic Party line and is too vocal when doing her job.

[edit on 18/6/06 by subz]

Originally posted by semperfortis
I don't know about the Police Officer, but I had no idea who she was until this incident.

It seems very clear to me, she broke the law and the Police Officer should have cuffed and stuffed her at that time. he did not and it went to the Grand Jury.

Well, if you are capital police assigned to the Capitol, you should be familiar with many of the congressman, especially considering there aren't many of them that are black.

And, apparently she has a history of this...

After an incident in 1993 when she had an altercation with a U.S. Capitol Police officer, a picture of her was posted for all officers since she frequently declined to wear a security pin identifying her as a member of Congress. There have been four more incidents since, including one involving a complaint that White House security officials mistook her 23-year-old white aide for her.[13][3]

en.wikipedia.org...

As well, isn't there some sort of law stating that members of Congress cannot be held accountable for minor crimes when they are on their way to session?

I'll repost from my other thread:

Originally posted by loam
Let's get some facts on the table:

1) The incident occurred at the New Jersey Avenue and C Street entrance to the Longworth Building.

***

2) Members of the House do not typically display their congressional ID cards around the Capitol complex, as staff do, but many wear the official lapel pin for the 109th Congress.

***

3) With or without the pin, many Congress members pass through security with merely a nod or hello to security officers. They are not required to pass through metal detectors.

***

4) A witness recounted that the officer pursued McKinney after she failed to pass through the metal detector. As the officer took McKinney by the arm, she swung around and punched him in the chest while still holding on to her cell phone.

***

5)

• In 1993, after she complained about being stopped by security guards, Capitol Police posted a photo of her on an office wall so that officers could remember who she was.

• In 1995, McKinney reportedly contacted the sergeant at arms after a white Capitol Police officer asked her to consent to a security check.

• In 1996 and 1998, she complained that White House security officials failed to recognize her and did not give her the same treatment as other members of Congress, at one time mistaking her 23-year-old white aide for the congresswoman.

...in a recent documentary about McKinney, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. Filmmaker Ian Inaba followed her around Capitol Hill for “American Blackout,” about African-American voting rights and McKinney’s 2002 reelection bid.

In one scene, McKinney is walking into the House side of the Capitol with Inaba when a white Capitol Police officer stops her. McKinney informs him that she is a congresswoman, prompting an immediate apology.

She then told the filmmaker that she is often challenged when entering the Capitol.

Originally posted by niteboy82

Originally posted by jsobecky
I'm sorry that you feel that way. I will make sure for now on that it doesn't appear that way to you. I am not meaning to attack you at all, jsobecky. That is not my intention, I don't want to attack anyone. At the same time, I cannot help if some people feel attacked when I respond to their postings, if I respond to those postings in a calm way. If I had responded to subz, instead of you, would you have posted this saying that I attacked subz?

No, I wouldn't have. I'm just curious as to why you responded to me instead of him first.

BUT...I sort of understand it, from a sports perspective, football (REAL football, not soccer

)

One guy attacks, the guy that is attacked reacts, and he always gets the penalty. Such is life.

I'll make it a point to double-read your posts, too, niteboy. No need for us to be contentious; we can debate above board without attacking.

[edit on 18-6-2006 by jsobecky]

No I am not Capital Police.

Sorry, I guess that seals it then, it really was racially motivated. HMMMMM, Seems everything is these days.