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: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
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"?....

Can I direct you to Loams post, 3rd from the bottom on page 2 of this thread? There is ample evidence of systematic harrasment.




posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by Muaddib
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"?....

Can I direct you to Loams post, 3rd from the bottom on page 2 of this thread? There is ample evidence of systematic harrasment.


It wont make a difference. Mauddib is married to his position.


In his world, ALL allegations made by law enforcement are fact to be proven otherwise. Fortunately, he was not responsible for architecting our jurisprudence system.


[edit on 18-6-2006 by loam]



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
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?


First, how do you know the police officer saw her face? If she was rushing in and avoided the metal detector the police officer may have noticed when her back was to him, and not before. She avoided indictment on grounds of "political correctness". We know that in these days just for being in a minority group you can make claims, whether they are true or not, and due to the "PC" of these days the person belonging to the minority group will get away with almost anything.

I know this because I am part of a minority group, and tehre have been situations which I could have used to make easy money, yet i dind't, because it isn't right. The only thing that stopped me from using my ethnicity to make easy money was my moral values. But we all know there are people out there who don't care much about moral values, and others would used any advantage they have just to get away from a situation such as this one.

[edit on 18-6-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
First, how do you know the police officer saw her face? If she was rushing in and avoided the metal detector the police officer may have noticed when her back was to him, and not before. She avoided indictment on grounds of "political correctness". We know that in these days just for being in a minority group you can make claims, whether they are true or not, and due to the "PC" of these days the person belonging to the minority group will get away with almost anything.

I know this because I am part of a minority group, and tehre have been situations which I could have used to make easy money, yet i dind't, because it isn't right. The only thing that stopped me from using my ethnicity to make easy money was my moral values. But we all know there are people out there who don't care much about moral values, and others would used any advantage they have just to get away from a situation such as this one.

I cant fault the content of that post but its mere conjecture, nothing in it is factual. There is ample evidence of systematic harrassment against McKinney by Capitol Police.

Also if McKinney got passed this guard without him noticing then he should be fired on the spot for gross negligence.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

It wont make a difference. Mauddib is married to his position.


In his world, ALL allegations made by law enforcement are fact to be proven otherwise. Fortunately, he was not responsible for architecting our jurisprudence system.


First of all.... Common sense would dictate that "if the police officers were told not to discriminate against her and a picture of her was posted"....They were given an order.....it makes more sense that if the police officer did see her face, and recognized her, as it is claimed, he would not have stopped her.... Police officers were warned, if one of them decides not to follow orders you think he/she would hold hi/her job for long?....

Who has made their minds immediately as what happened in this case is you, and all those people who are relying merely in "rumors" to claim she was right and the police officer was wrong.

I wasn't there so I can't say for certain one way or another, but I see enough reasonable doubt for me to think that it is more certain that the police officer didn't recognize her. She was talking on her cellphone as this happened. How do you know for certain that her cell phone wasn't covering half of her face and because of this the police officer didn't not recognize her?....
How do you know for certain that the police officer saw her distinctively coming at him/her? Couldn't the police officer have been looking, or talking to another person, asking to provide a photo id or whatever, who he didn't recognize and then noticed a woman with a cell phone pass by and trying to avoid the metal detectors?


[edit on 18-6-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
I cant fault the content of that post but its mere conjecture, nothing in it is factual. There is ample evidence of systematic harrassment against McKinney by Capitol Police.

Also if McKinney got passed this guard without him noticing then he should be fired on the spot for gross negligence.


Oh i see.....so nomatter what "the police officer is at fault"....

Who is basing their argument in nothing but conjecture and making assumptions? I already stated I am not sure to what happened exactly, but i see people just immediately agreeing with her...perhaps it has something to do with her views?



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Who is basing their argument in nothing but conjecture and making assumptions? I already stated I am not sure to what happened exactly, but i see people just immediately agreeing with her...perhaps it has something to do with her views?

I wouldnt confuse your ignorance of the facts with complete ignorance of the facts, Muaddib. There is ample evidence outlining what has occured before, during and after this incident. If you dont read what is given then whats the point of discussing anything with you? Loam is right, you really are married to your position and not a thing we say will change that.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Actually if you all will recall, several major news organizations ran stories on this and the recognition factor immediately after the incident.
During those stories, if you will recall, pictures were ran of her the day before the incident, and the day of the incident.
Now if you recall that, then you recall she had once again, radically changed her hair and what appeared to me to be her appearance as well. This is apparently a habit of hers and of course is her absolute right, yet why would she do this and still wonder upon being stopped?
And of course she "claims" she is being harassed, she is guilty.
Of course she "claims" she is stopped all the time, she is guilty.
Of course she claims the Officer assaulted her, she is guilty.

Guilty people claim all kinds of stuff, all of it moronic, yet they still expect us to believe it.

Still the Grand Jury did not find enough evidence to proceed. That's right, they can NOT find her innocent, or guilty, only if there is enough evidence "in their opinion" to proceed.

AHHHH The Wonder and Beauty of our Nations Capital where not only can a Crack Addict be your Mayor, but he can be reelected. A person that assaults a Police Officer should feel right at home. Kind of like a Kennedy that drives under the influence.

Just my ramblings

Semper



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
AHHHH The Wonder and Beauty of our Nations Capital where not only can a Crack Addict be your Mayor, but he can be reelected.

And a former cokehead can be the president and get re-elected.


A person that assaults a Police Officer should feel right at home. Kind of like a Kennedy that drives under the influence.

Or a DeLay on corruption charges.

Why just pick out Democrats? There's crooks on both sides.

[edit on 18-6-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

I wouldnt confuse your ignorance of the facts with complete ignorance of the facts, Muaddib. There is ample evidence outlining what has occured before, during and after this incident. If you dont read what is given then whats the point of discussing anything with you? Loam is right, you really are married to your position and not a thing we say will change that.


Oh, I see....so now you resort to attacking me and claiming "I am ignorant of the facts".... Who knew you would try to do this....

Have you changed your mind that maybe she could be at fault for this and she is using this as a political tool?.... i guess you are married to your position and are not open to the possibility that it is her the one at fault for this.

[edit on 18-6-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I would still like to know what jsobecky meant with his/her comment about "poor genetics."

What happened? Why so quiet?



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Still no qualification on your "poor genetics" comment jsobecky? So you dont mind people thinking you're a racist?


Trying to bait me, subz? And are you calling me a racist?

What is racist about poor genetics?



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Trying to bait me, subz? And are you calling me a racist?
What is racist about poor genetics?


Well, jsobecky, if you would maybe explain what you meant, people wouldn't jump to their own conclusions. I would actually like to know what source you have for this "bad genetics" theory. Is there some article that puts this out there without involving race? I don't see this as baiting you, as much as trying to get you to clarify exactly what you were suggesting.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
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.

She has not been "stopped relentlessly". That's being overdramatic, for goodness' sake.

And, a picture of her was posted 13 years ago. She hasn't changed her appearance since then?

There hasn't been turnover in the PD since then?

Btw, she was sporting a radical new haircut at the time.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
Well, jsobecky, if you would maybe explain what you meant, people wouldn't jump to their own conclusions.

People will jump to their own conclusions no matter what I say.


I would actually like to know what source you have for this "bad genetics" theory. Is there some article that puts this out there without involving race? I don't see this as baiting you, as much as trying to get you to clarify exactly what you were suggesting.

Get serious. Do you explain every word or phrase you type?

And I want to know how someone equates poor genetics with being racist. When you explain that, things can progress.

I didn't create that argument; I won't defend it.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
I would still like to know what jsobecky meant with his/her comment about "poor genetics."

What happened? Why so quiet?

I'd also like some comment on my questions:


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 @ 08:44 PM
link   


She's just too stupid to do so. Poor genetics, methinks.


ok jsobecky please explain then what it was suppose to be taken as, and why you would say it. I doubt you know her parents, so that cant be it. I dont think you know her genetics or anything to that extent even, so that cant be it. So what was it that made you say poor genetics? (that means you said because of something inside her she was born too stupid to wear her pin. Obviously that means your not attacking her stupidity but something that has to do with her birth characteristic. If it doesnt have to do with her parents mental capacity, doesnt have to do with you actually knowing her genetics, how else do you think people are going to take it?)



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I doubt you know her parents, so that cant be it.

I never met them personally, but I have heard about her father:

Congresswoman McKinney's father quits as her campaign advisor after he makes racist remark.

And I meant it contemptuosly, because I despise her because she tries to play the race card to explain her own misdeeds, among other things.

And I really don't care how people interpret it, except when they call me a racist, and then expect me to defend myself.


[edit on 18-6-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Why would people assume that jsobecky meant something racial when he suggested 'poor genetics'? Is that ALL Cynthia McKinney is to people? A black woman? Is everything said about McKinney about her race?

If someone said she had a 'big mouth' would that be suspected as a racist comment?

I wish to God people would get off her race! That's just a distraction from the issue.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
People will jump to their own conclusions no matter what I say.


This seems to be the case.



Get serious. Do you explain every word or phrase you type?

And I want to know how someone equates poor genetics with being racist. When you explain that, things can progress.

I didn't create that argument; I won't defend it.


Actually, I was just trying to ask you to clarify, and show why people were thinking this. I didn't mean any offense towards you, jsobecky, if anything I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in the meaning.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join