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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
loam

It would be easier if you could put your own thoughts and conclusions down instead of referring us to a bunch of links. Then we could respond to you, insted of an article.


T'anks.




posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   


And if I had done so, would you not have called for the links????



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I think loam's post illustrated the extenuating circumstances conclusively. Also Jamuhn is on the money with regards to the immunity Congress has from prosecution for petty crimes on their way to Congress.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
And yet, is assault on a Police Officer a petty crime?

It is a Felony here.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
And yet, is assault on a Police Officer a petty crime?

It is a Felony here.

But when provoked? The very reason that immunity exists is so that Congress cannot be hindered for political reasons. Picture it, Congress wants to vote on Capitol police pay rises. The police might know who's going to vote "no" so they try to stop them at the gates and if they retaliate, like McKinney, they could be arrested.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
or he could have been in the control of aliens. Who knows any of the for sure?

The fact of the matter is, unlike civilians, the Police are allowed to use force (ie grabbing) to stop someone that is suspected, SUSPECTED now, not proven, to have committed an infraction.

If you touch me in my state, and I do not want you too, you get arrested for Assault on a Police Officer, taken to a Magistrate and bonded on a Felony.

I do not get paid enough to let people paw me anytime they feel like it.

And another thing, to have walked BY HIM, and then claim she did not know who it was? Who believes that load? She was apparently flaunting the rules and got called on it. It is only a shame that unlike her constituents, because of who she is, she gets off scot-free.

Semper



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam


And if I had done so, would you not have called for the links????

No, loam, I just wantd to hear your thoughts, is all.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by semperfortis
And yet, is assault on a Police Officer a petty crime?

It is a Felony here.

But when provoked? The very reason that immunity exists is so that Congress cannot be hindered for political reasons. Picture it, Congress wants to vote on Capitol police pay rises. The police might know who's going to vote "no" so they try to stop them at the gates and if they retaliate, like McKinney, they could be arrested.

Who was provoked? And by whom?

McKinney instigated the incident by not responding to his call to her. And then she turned around and struck him.

Was there provocation for her striking him?

The argument is "Don't Touch!". But what if you had dropped your wallet or some important papers? Would you not want someone to alert you to that fact?



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by semperfortis
And yet, is assault on a Police Officer a petty crime?

It is a Felony here.

But when provoked? The very reason that immunity exists is so that Congress cannot be hindered for political reasons. Picture it, Congress wants to vote on Capitol police pay rises. The police might know who's going to vote "no" so they try to stop them at the gates and if they retaliate, like McKinney, they could be arrested.

That is expressly forbidden by Article 1, Section 6, of the US Constitution:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...


That does not apply in this case. All rational constitutional lawyers would agree with me.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
And Notice how FELONY is clearly stated as an exception to what they can "get away" with.

But again like I said, Juries, even Grand Juries, are hard to predict at best.

I do not see the DA going farther with this, although he could, if only for political reasons.

He is probably just shrugging his shoulders and saying, "she is an idiot and I can't change that" and moving on to other cases.

But that is just my guess.

Semper



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
While I do not think congressman should have immunity even for small crimes committed on their way to a session, I also think to claim what McKinney did as a felony is a little overzealous. I think it is a matter of intent, she was not trying to cause bodily harm, but rather acting out of defiance. If she beat that officer bloody, then I would see an indictment necessary. But, as it is, she was just reacting like a spoiled kid who didn't get her way. I think the public embarassment and harm to her character is enough punishment.

But, still, did the officer know who she was and try to provoke a reaction from her? This has happened a few times in the past. Is it reasonable to assume that the capitol police did not recognize a person who has had run-ins with them on several occasions to the point of her picture being posted in their station? Do the capitol police really not know who they are supposed to protect?



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I think the public embarassment and harm to her character is enough punishment.

Agreed. But now, with this ruling, she appears to be totally vindicated, which is wrong, imo.


But, still, did the officer know who she was and try to provoke a reaction from her? This has happened a few times in the past. Is it reasonable to assume that the capitol police did not recognize a person who has had run-ins with them on several occasions to the point of her picture being posted in their station? Do the capitol police really not know who they are supposed to protect?

Yes, very possible that he knew who she was. All the more reason for her to do whatever necessary to prevent an altercation; the police will always be within their rights and duties to stop her. Nothing good can come from challenging their authority just to make a point.

She needs to realize that the best thing to do is to not provoke.

Not a felony on her part, but a bad judgement, imo.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Still no qualification on your "poor genetics" comment jsobecky? So you dont mind people thinking you're a racist?



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
That does not apply in this case. All rational constitutional lawyers would agree with me.


Well I would say it is, It is in no way her fault this guy doesnt know who she is. well actually some what because she wasn't wearing the Pin. But I find that arguement BS because of the amount of times she has been stopped and such. After being in there for HOW LONG and yet shes is still getting stopped and even forcefully stopped when trying to attend a session? Come on now, I think its pretty clear that after years of attendance these police would have reconized her. To say they didn't is BS, they are the police of that area. Its not like this was some random police officer who doesn't even know who 90% of the senators and congress are, nor ever cared. these are police that see them probably on almost a daily basis.

I say the "I didnt know it was her so I forcefully stopped her" arguement BS, maybe if he was a normal police man, but not one of these police.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz


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?


..... Like around here people don't use the same tactics against Republicans.....

Take a look at some of the threads and all you see are threads based on pictures and people just making fun of them trying to put forth their own political agenda.....



Originally posted by subz

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.


I doubt she is the only one who is asked for her id, and I could bet she is making a fuss out of nothing, unless she can actually present evidence to back her claims.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

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.


If she was rushing in because she was late, it is her fault, she works in a place were there are many U.S. representatives...if a police officer sees anyone running like that and trying to avoid the metal detector, don't you think that police officer would think this person might not have the best intentions in her/his mind?...

BTW, if you were in the same circumstances, and you did the same thing, but even worse, I would hope that you would be sent straight to prison.


The only reason why a person should strike another is for self defense, perhaps she thought herself special, and that she can do whatever she wants.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
..... Like around here people don't use the same tactics against Republicans.....

Take a look at some of the threads and all you see are threads based on pictures and people just making fun of them trying to put forth their own political agenda.....

I cant speak for everyone else on here but I know I dont bother with that kind of sophomoric discourse. Whats the point?


Originally posted by Muaddib
I doubt she is the only one who is asked for her id, and I could bet she is making a fuss out of nothing, unless she can actually present evidence to back her claims.

I remember reading her accounts of being stopped relentlessly by Capitol Police before this incident occured. Loam also provided past occurances where Rep. McKinney has complained directly to Capitol Police over the very same issue, which resulted in EVERY Capitol Police officer being made aware of McKinney. To claim there are Capitol Police officers that do not recognize her beggers belief. Also the fact that the Grand Jury refused to indict her lends credence to the very premise of extenuating circumstance. How else would she avoid indictment when she admitted to striking the officer?



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

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]



What is weak is your argument that because "there is a baseless rumor" , unless you have some tangible evidence to back this claim, that "it must be true"....

Let's take a look once again at the claim...


"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."


How do you know if the police officer saw her face for certain, or even knew about her?... There are many people out there with my name and I don't know them. This is the first time that I heard this person's name.

If she was rushing in, she did avoid going through the metal detector, you think that a police officer seeing a person rushing in, and or avoiding a metal detector should be allowed to continue going inside a building?

Did the police officer call out for the running woman/woman who avoided the metal detector, and did she know she was being called but decided "he must have known who I am, I am an important person, and i am late, so screw him"...or something like that?.... Then when the police officer tries to stop her she punches him?....



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Did she walk in backwards? If not then the guard must of been asleep not to notice her. What's he paid for? How many people can get passed the Capitol Police security and bypass the metal detector before being challenged?

The guard was being a petty goon. He probably wanted to teach this uppity a lesson in respecting his authouritah



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
She lost her cool after systematic victimization and harrassment.


That's only a claim perhaps to use this event as leverage and to avoid being punished for it. Where is the "real evidence" she was "victimized and harrased"?....




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join