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: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
I find this Oprah story incredibly indicative of what I was talking about in my last post.

They didn't let Oprah in because the store was closed and they were setting up for another event inside. She's Oprah freaking Winfrey. Do you think they cared what color she is??? Her money is the same color as everyone's and she's one of the most wealthy people around!

Let's put this into perspective. Would they have let me in? I'm white. In fact, would they let me in ANY time they were closed? No. That's bias, all right, but not against black people. That's elitism.

It's ridiculous for anyone to automatically assume that Hermes cares about her skin color. They don't care! They just want her money and that's why they apologized. Not because they felt they had done something wrong, but because they wanted her money to return to the store.

And of course, many say it's because she's black. :shk:

Oprah's words after the 'incident':

Oprah Makes Peace with Hermes


"I just want to say shame on anybody for thinking that I was upset for not being able to get into a clothes store and buy a purse," said Winfrey. "Please, please."

"Everybody who's ever been snubbed because you were not chic enough or the right class or the right color or whatever — I don't know what it was — you know that that is very humiliating and that is exactly what happened to me."


We've ALL been snubbed. It's not a black thing. We ALL deal with bias for one reason or another.

She wasn't 'dressed up' as Oprah and if you've ever seen her without makeup, you know she doesn't even look like her TV persona. They most likely didn't recognize her.



Nevertheless, Winfrey complimented Hermes on its handling of the incident (including "sensitivity training" for employees), and urged viewers to again buy Hermes products.


She apparently knows it's the color of her money that matters. Yes, she was turned away. But so would anyone have been. Attribute it to her race if you must, but I'm glad that she knows better.




[edit on 24-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]




posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
And in the case of Ms. McKinney, clothes or hairstyle did not play a part in her harrassment by the Capitol Police.


While I agree with this statement, and appreciate that we've been able to have this civil dialgoue, I don't agree with it for the same reason as you. It was her actions, not her wardrobe that led to that indicent.

Her wardrobe that day really has nothing to do with my argument, so I just want to be clear on that. I don't think I've even referenced said incident.

Perhaps there was more to it than that. Maybe the security guard saw a black woman he didn't think belonged rush through secutiry and not stop. Maybe Cynthia wasn't going to let some nobody white cop tell her what to do. Who knows, and I certainly don't want to partake in that part of the discussion.

-O



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
She wasn't 'dressed up' as Oprah and if you've ever seen her without makeup, you know she doesn't even look like TV persona. They most likely didn't recognize her.


You know, I've been watching Oprah (well, not "watching" but seeing her on TV) since the early 80s when I was a little kid growing up in Detroit when my mom had it on. I know we had her on in Detroit before she was completely national, being that her show is in nearby Chicago.

Anyway, funny you should mention the makeup thing, because I always thought she was a pretty woman. Not a model by any means, but pretty, even when she was heavy. But man, when I saw her without her makeup on working out on of her shows or some other show, I didn't even know it was her.

It is truly amazing what makeup artists are able to do, especially with her skin condition (she has a lot of faded splotches on her face), really incredible stuff. Of course, it helps that she's aged well too, or so it seems, hard to say with makeup nowadays but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.

-O



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
The recent event is not the first time she did this, and one time a couple of years ago she had a film crew with her, just hoping that something like this would happen.

What's the chance that every capitol police-person remembers the looks of EVERY ONE of over 450 people? Plain and simple, she didn't have on her badge, and the police have the right to stop anyone without a badge.

The only reason she's there in the first place is because the Dems couldn't find anyone else to run.

Why were no charges placed against her? because when you're a Dem, it's different.

[edit on 24-6-2006 by zappafan1]


df1

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I don`t even like McKinney and I am amazed that anyone would elect her to dog catcher, let alone the house. However the continued discussion of this trivial incident is nothing more than faux patriot desperation.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
The only reason she's there in the first place is because the Dems couldn't find anyone else to run.


Incorrect.... Denise Majette, who had Cynthia's old seat, decided to run for senate. Therefore, her seat in the 4th district was open. Cynthia ran against several other people in the primary, and won with a majority, thus not requiring a run off. She then beat the Republican canidate handidly in the election.

-O



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I thought about being diplomatic about these latest statements, but I feel I cannot. What bothers me intensely is when people say that this is a "trivial event". Obviously, this is not so trivial if nine pages were devoted to hashing out the feelings concerned about whether Cynthia McKinney is guilty despite the verdict of the grand jury.

With that being said, I truly believe that it has to do with life experiences. For people who have not had to deal with being constantly "watched" by those in authority, they would not know how it feels like to be scrutinized whereever they go.

Case in point. I decided to go to the Apple Store in my city to look at the new ipods and Powerbooks on display. I was dressed professionally. I also had my Coach Bag on my shoulder. And yes, my hair was truly relaxed. But the white security guard kept on following me around. I thought it was a joke because there were teenagers in the store dressing casually. And there were other people in the store that were also in casual dress. But the guard kept following me instead of standing at the door as a security person usually does at a high end store.

I decided to play a trick on him. I walked away from the laptops and went instead to the software games (because I am a diehard Sims fan). The shelves where the games were was located in the back of the store. In fact, there were several other kids around me. As I picked up a copy of the Sims2 game, I slightly looked over my shoulder. Hovering near me was the guard watching my every move.

In the end, I decided to buy some periphials for my laptop--that is after being tailed by the guard and having several clerks at the store ask me, "Are you finding things okay?" I'm sure some were embarrassed that the guard was paying so much attention to me. After all, there could have been real shop-lifters in the store picking up what they wanted and slipping it in their pockets for all I know. But it didn't matter to the cop. He felt I had a predisposition to crime.

After I bought what I wanted, I found that the guard was standing at the door again still watching me like a hawk. I smiled and said, "Thank you. Have a nice day."

He barely grunted a reply as I walked out the store.

So don't tell me that these experiences are trivialized. And I take offense when people say that such an experience can be nullified just because "I'm Black". When it happens long enough over the years, you might feel that there is something "biased" in the approach of people that goes past clothing. And I'm sure that others like myself have gone through the same "harrassment" whereever they go despite how many degrees they have or the jobs they hold.

It isn't always about money.


Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic

It's not "right" that people get judged on their dress, their race, their gender, their appearance... BUT I believe it is fair to judge someone on their behavior. It's indicative of how they think, how much they respect other people, how stubborn they are, how well they can work with others and how they will do their job.


I agree. But for some people, their attitude about the behaviors regarding some people with darker skin are already written into their stereotypes. Like the cop above, I was merely doing what other average Americans were in the store. But because of "racial profiling", he still felt he had to tail me opposed to others doing real crime. You just can't say that it's not "right" or that it is "not fair". It happens. And some people use "behavior" as an excuse for their own bias.


It's one of my pet peeves when people do this. Or they make everything "because I'm a woman" or "because I'm ugly" or "because I'm old". People can't take criticism and insist on attributing it to something outside of their control instead of really hearing it and considering that maybe, just maybe there's some validity to it.


I respectfully disagree. I think that most of us can tell the difference between true criticism and when it is racially biased. It's one of my pet peeves that people write off personal experiences of racism and simply attribute it to be "all about race". What bothers me more is the fact that simply because another's experience is out of the realm of one's understanding, they simply write it off as "not taking criticism".

Sometimes an experience about race is what it is. And sometimes, you need to have proof to solidify your claims about that experience. Sadly enough, there are people who don't understand no matter how much proof you put up there about others who have experienced the same thing. Some people just don't get it. And so, they write it off as being "trivial".


If Cynthia McKinney planned a picnic and it rained that day? She'd blame God for ruining her picnic because she's black.


How do you know? Have you asked her? That's another pet peeve of mine. It is when people assume what others would do when it has to do with race. We are different individuals. You never know about their intent in a situation unless they truly say or do it.

OTOH, there are people who work in the area of civil rights, cultural studies as well as other race-based studies. So when they discuss race, it is their business. And for those of us who have had life-experiences which help validate their research, sometimes there are situations which have to be explained because of racial bias.

What are you going to say when someone relates their experience of being turned away from a building that says Whites only during the times of Jim Crow? Is it because of their color? Or is it simply because of the law? How else would you explain the Church bombing in Alabama that killed four little girls? Was it because of their race? Or because the bombers decided one day to rig explosives up to any old church they wanted?



I know this sounds like a harsh judgment, and it is, but I agree with it 100%. People taking advantage of existence of racism to somehow benefit and keep themselves in a victim position glean my very strongest judgment.


Talking about race and relating experiences in such a format is not victimization. It is educating others about different life experiences. Usually, when one attributes the notion of "victimization" it is mainly to "nullify" the other's point. It's not about calling someone a racist because they don't understand. The receiver of the message often puts up a wall against the message because of the attribution of "victimization".

Instead, I think bringing up experiences and having them discussed in mixed company is a form of empowerment. If people don't realize these things are happening, then there is no basis for trying to work out these problems in order to make a more just society.

We have to tear down the walls of those who quickly write off experiences and nullify them--even when it is hard to do. But then again, some people will always keep those walls up no matter what you say simply because they are thinking immediately that one's experience contributes to the "victim mentality". And that communicates to me that they are turning their back on the experience and refusing to hear what has been said instead of acknowledging it.

Btw, I will post something more on Cynthia McKinney later. But I just wanted to answer not only your comments, BH, but a few others lately on the thread.


















[edit on 24-6-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic
I would really like to know how Cynthia McKinney is as a Representative. Does she do her job? Does she represent her constituents? Does she deserve the judgments against her professionalism?


First of all, I would like to post a number of links to her speeches so you can read what she says in her own words:

WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (House of Representatives - June 21, 2000)
Goodbye to All That
Text of Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney's concession speech August 21, 2002
Toward a Just and Peaceful World
Cynthia McKinney Victory Speech: "It's a New Day"
Fmr. Rep. Cynthia McKinney Set to Win Back Georgia Seat After Democratic Primary Victory
A Few Thoughts on the State of Our Nation

Secondly, I would like to post her voting record so that you know what position she takes on issues brought forth in Congress:

Representative Cynthia Ann McKinney (GA)

And thirdly, here is what Greg Palast has had to say about Ms. McKinney in response to the smear campaign that she is "loony" and "crying race":

The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney


How does she behave?


I've looked for papers by psychologists from the APA and other professional psychological associations regarding Ms. McKinney's behavior. The only ones that talk about her "abnormal psychology" are right wing bloggers, political pundits and of course hired hacks paid to say that she's crazy.

Now, the Internet is a big place. And I will continue to search for any psychological report written by a professional on Ms. McKinney's "lunacy". If I find such, I will post it at a future time.

But I would also like people to pay attention that a lot of psychological reports (including one book by Dr. Justin Frank called Bush on the Couch) has been written about our POTUS, Mr. George W. Bush. I think that speaks volumes in comparison to Ms. McKinney.



[edit on 24-6-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Bush on the couch is a great book.

-O



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I think many people looking at this issue are not familair with article six of the constitution.

======================================================
Section. 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. 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.
======================================================

Cynthia McKinney was "going to" her "respective House" and was thus immune from arrest. The charge of "assaulting an officer" isn't the same as "treason, felony or breach of peace." End of story.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by nakedtruth
Cynthia McKinney was "going to" her "respective House" and was thus immune from arrest.


So she was not arrested, what's your point?


The charge of "assaulting an officer" isn't the same as "treason, felony or breach of peace." End of story.


Either way, alllegedly, the assault took place. If the grand jury decided to issue an indictment, Cynthia would be liable to get arrested (because she wasn't going to her "respective house" at this point), no?

Let me ask this -- if instead of "tapping the officer with a cellphone" a member of the Congress (hypothetically) really beat the officer up, would you still say it was OK?



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by nakedtruth
Cynthia McKinney was "going to" her "respective House" and was thus immune from arrest.


So she was not arrested, what's your point?


No arrest = no indictment so no reason for the rest of you saps to whine.



Either way, alllegedly, the assault took place. If the grand jury decided to issue an indictment, Cynthia would be liable to get arrested (because she wasn't going to her "respective house" at this point), no?


The fact is the grand jury DIDN'T issue an indictment. And the incident that precipitated this was a police officer attempting to detain her on the way to her "respective house". According to the constituion he didn't have the right to do that.



Let me ask this -- if instead of "tapping the officer with a cellphone" a member of the Congress (hypothetically) really beat the officer up, would you still say it was OK?


I'm not saying anything. I'm simply quoting the constitution. If the really "beating up the officer" rose to a "breach of peace" someone could make that argument. A tap with a cell phone hardly rises to that.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nakedtruth
I think many people looking at this issue are not familair with article six of the constitution.

I'm familiar!


It's Article 1, Section 6 (also known as the "Speech and Debate clause").

======================================================
Section. 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. 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.
======================================================

She was not totally immune from arrest; three specific exclusions are listed, of which two could possible apply here.

The fact that the Grand Jury failed to return a indictment could have many reasons. After all, a jury failed to find OJ Simpon or Robert Blake guilty.

As far as the previous poster's shopping experience. she failed to say whether she was the only person of color in the store.

I can only guess that the quickest way to get a security guard's attention is to continually cast furtive glances his way.

And who knows? Maybe the guard was attracted to the shopper?

Edit typo





[edit on 26-6-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Question??

Why is everyone referring to the incident as a "tap" with the cell phone, as if they were there??

Everything I have read states that she "struck" him in the chest with her cell phone in a closed fist. At what point does it become a battery? All she had to do was move to strike for it to be an assault. No contact necessary. And yes, assault on a Police Officer is a Felony, there for NOT protected.

The Grand Jury did in fact NOT return the indictment, but what do you expect in DC, from 12 civilians?

Semper



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Question??

Why is everyone referring to the incident as a "tap" with the cell phone, as if they were there??

Were you there? If not how can you comment on the voracity of the term "tap"?


Originally posted by semperfortis
Everything I have read states that she "struck" him in the chest with her cell phone in a closed fist. At what point does it become a battery? All she had to do was move to strike for it to be an assault. No contact necessary. And yes, assault on a Police Officer is a Felony, there for NOT protected.

I guess if you tapped a policeman on the shoulder to ask them for directions you could be charged with a felony too. Is that the scenario you want? Intent and circumstance is rightly taken into account with trivialities such as this. Did this guy have a bruise on his chest even? If you ask me the whole deal is politically motivated and this cop has to be the biggest wuss on the planet if he was hurt by all this.


Originally posted by semperfortis
The Grand Jury did in fact NOT return the indictment, but what do you expect in DC, from 12 civilians?

So you think the jury system is faulty? Well what would you recommend in its place? This should be a very telling answer.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   
No I was not there, but I'm pretty sure you were not either and the REPORT states "struck." So the originator of the word "TAP" would be the "Nothing is Cindy's fault" people like you.

"Facts is facts" and all we have to go on is the ORIGINAL statement, you know the truth?

And the rest of the posting is obviously from someone completely unfamiliar with anything dealing with the law. Not really comment worthy.

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

She should have been cuffed and stuffed right there and then that would have taken care of any of this before it started.

Semper



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
No I was not there, but I'm pretty sure you were not either and the REPORT states "struck." So the originator of the word "TAP" would be the "Nothing is Cindy's fault" people like you.

"Facts is facts" and all we have to go on is the ORIGINAL statement, you know the truth?

And the rest of the posting is obviously from someone completely unfamiliar with anything dealing with the law. Not really comment worthy.

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

She should have been cuffed and stuffed right there and then that would have taken care of any of this before it started.

Semper

Listen, I dont play your game of liberal/conservative. You have no idea what I believe in so dont try to corral me into your black and white partisan nightmare.

The "fact is" that a grand jury chose not to indict Cynthia McKinney. They thought she had nothing to answer for. A jury is the paramount legal system in Western democracies. The end.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   
More legal information.

No the Grand Jury is NOT the final word.

If the DA, Prosecutor, Solicitor or AG, (whatever they are called in your jurisdiction) decide to, they can still issue warrants and make an arrest in any felony case. Even after the Grand Jury.

Just a little educational correction.

Semper



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
More legal information.

No the Grand Jury is NOT the final word.

If the DA, Prosecutor, Solicitor or AG, (whatever they are called in your jurisdiction) decide to, they can still issue warrants and make an arrest in any felony case. Even after the Grand Jury.

Just a little educational correction.

If the prosecutor tries to do that in this case, by all means discuss it. Until then, dont try to make this a partisan issue please.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   
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

Semper



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join