Grand Jury Declines Cynthia McKinney Indictment

Originally posted by subz
Trolling does not come into this, you wrote what you wrote.

Yes it does, and you know it. Why don't you drop the race issue?

It ostensibly sounded racist, I asked you to clarify what you meant by that remark. You didnt, refused, ignored, what ever, the chance to clarify what you meant. Therefore myself and others were left no option but to assume you were being racist.

Once again, this is your interpretation, and attempt to start an argument.

It's my interpretation because you have thus far ignored any opportunity to clarify what you meant by clearly stating that you think McKinney's actions are the result of "bad genetics".

I did address 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.

What else?

If you make ostensibly racist remarks on this messageboard you should expect to be called out on it.

Once again - no, for probably the fourth time, subz - you are the one that is trying to inject race into this issue. Other members have called you on the carpet for it also. It's your issue, not mine.

For the record jsobecky, djarums was not specific in who he was refering to, so your crowing is misplaced. He was not succint in any definition of the word.

Doesn't matter to me what you think. I still say Djarums made a great post.

But there seems to be a case where assaulting a police officer is more of a crime than assaulting any other citizen.

That's correct.

In fact, in New York City assualting a police officer, firefighter, or transit operator is considered "more of a crime" than assaulting any other citizen.

Had something to do with them putting their lives at risk and numerous abuses over the years.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I did address 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.

What else?

Ok so let me get this straight. According to you, if your father says a racist comment it can be deduced that their progeny will have bad genes.

Is that your position?

Originally posted by Djarums
That's correct.

In fact, in New York City assualting a police officer, firefighter, or transit operator is considered "more of a crime" than assaulting any other citizen.

Had something to do with them putting their lives at risk and numerous abuses over the years.

I understand and accept that. But how can people believe that and then dismiss out of hand that Congressmen and woman should be treated differently to ordinary citizens? They are representatives of the people of the United States, doesnt that change their status at all?

[edit on 19/6/06 by subz]

Originally posted by subz
They are representatives of the people of the United States, doesnt that change their status at all?

Of course it does. They are public service employees. As the name implies, they are employed by, and accountable to, the American public who put them there.

While I agree that they should be entitled to certain priveleges due to their status and jobs, like security for example, I also believe that they should be held to a higher standard because of their status as "electeds".

For the record, the proper procedure for Ms. McKinney in this case would have been to register a formal complaint (discrimination or otherwise) about the incident. She should have, as a Congresswoman used the proper channels to file a complaint demanding an explanation as to why in her opinion she is the only one being bothered. The proper course of action was not to turn around and wack the fellow in the chest.

That's not how anyone communicates their distaste with someone else's actions, not a civilian, not a cop, not a Congresswoman.

Originally posted by Djarums
Of course it does. They are public service employees. As the name implies, they are employed by, and accountable to, the American public who put them there.

While I agree that they should be entitled to certain priveleges due to their status and jobs, like security for example, I also believe that they should be held to a higher standard because of their status as "electeds".

For the record, the proper procedure for Ms. McKinney in this case would have been to register a formal complaint (discrimination or otherwise) about the incident. She should have, as a Congresswoman used the proper channels to file a complaint demanding an explanation as to why in her opinion she is the only one being bothered. The proper course of action was not to turn around and wack the fellow in the chest.

That's not how anyone communicates their distaste with someone else's actions, not a civilian, not a cop, not a Congresswoman.

Yep, spot on, I agree. This is merely an observation, not in reference to this specific instance.

She was in the wrong in striking him, I admit that and so did she.

But in response to what the proper procedure should of been for her, didnt she already go through the process? Not that its an excuse but it points to a problem that she cannot seem to rectify in her capacity as a Congresswoman. That's a problem right there.

True, so let us analyze it another way...

Let's figure out what is NOT the problem, and then from that perhaps we can arrive at what the problem is.

In my prior posts I have discussed the following points and refuted them.

1. Congresswoman McKinney is Black
   
   This is clearly not the problem because there are many members of Congress who are also African American and have never had any such problems, in fact she appears to be the only one.
   
   
2. Congresswoman McKinney is an opponent of the Bush Administration
   
   Well yes she is. And so are hundreds of other members of Congress, but again... no one else seems to have had such problems.
   
   
3. Congresswoman McKinney opposes popular views and has demanded investigations into alleged government misconduct.
   
   Ok... now the group gets smaller, but there are other members of Congress who fight conventional wisdom tooth and nail and have not encountered such incidents.
   

Now however, we must consider other points. Ones that should be easily refuted by my esteemed colleagues here.

1. Congresswoman McKinney has proven that she herself has often had to recant comments after intentionally drawing race into arguments.
   
   Does no one remember when she went off and Gore and said he had no "Negro Tolerance" even though the man's campaign manager was black?
   
   
2. Congresswoman McKinney has had to recant comments regarding 9/11 due to potential libel suits.
   
   I'm sure some of us remember her comments that people knew about 9/11 beforehand and traded certain stocks beforehand to make money off of 9/11 (including Bush).
   
   
3. Efforts had been made to accomadate Congresswoman McKinney's irrational and unexplainable refusal to wear the Congressional pin, to the point where Capitol police officers were all given her picture in 1993 to make sure they recognized her when she came in. There was absolutely no precedent for this, ever.
   
   
4. Congresswoman McKinney's immediate response to her embarassing and irrational antics at the Capitol was "I was inappropriately touched because I'm a black woman congress member" (paraphrase).
   
   Not "look, things got heated, sorry", or "why am i always being bothered more than others?"... no... Immediately Ms McKinney inserted race, sex, and "inappropriate touching".
   

My point is this woman has committed inexplicable conduct so many times that I can not understand why she continues to be reelected.


[edit on 6-19-2006 by Djarums]

With all that in mind:

I guess she is more prone to rising to the bait than the likes of Ron Paul. Knowing this, wouldn't she be the prime target to harrass and get a rise out of, thus portraying everyone who espouses her views to be just as irrational?

So that leaves Ms. McKinney's major fault as being prone to baiting.

I cant help but empathize with that situation. She is obviously trying to do what is best for her country yet she is on the receiving end of antagonism of the higest order.

She's not perfect, raising the race card unneccesarily does herself great harm. But she shouldn't be condemned when she is being goaded by the establishment.

posted by Harte

Donwhite,
While I can agree with much of your post, this part seems a little harsh to me.

posted by donwhite
“ . . the prosecutor wanted the Grand Jury to indict her. Chuck Canterbury, national president of the Fraternal Order of Police said “What most angers the police about the McKinney case is that it involves an assault — no matter how minor — of a police officer. Police reported that McKinney hit an officer in the chest after he failed to recognize her as a member of Congress . . “ [Edited by Don W]

I apologize to the Board for ignorantly stereotyping the prosecutor. OTOH, albeit for another reason I’ve transposed above, I believe my original remark is still justified. The operative words in this dispute are “— no matter how minor —“ to which I say, yes, it does matter!

My recollection of the incident goes like this. Ms. McKinney bypassed the metal detectors at the door to the building. The officer hailed her to stop. She ignored (or did not hear) him. The officer laid hands on her. She shoved back. This shoving back is what the police and prosecutor have described as an assault. The Grand Jury saw through that sham.

There are two kinds of assault in the law. One is civil, and one is criminal. The civil assault is the slightest touching without consent. The criminal assault requires the victim to have some injury, however slight, without consent. It is very much debatable if a shove could injury a grown man. He would need a bruise or a break in the skin to qualify as an assault.

To me, this was a trivial incident. Without the race component there would have been no incident. I have already said Ms McKinney brought this on herself by not apologizing at the scene. She has an agenda. Because black people have been victimized in America, to varying degrees, since 1619, I have great sympathy for Ms McKinney. Can you blame her for having an agenda?

As I have posted elsewhere, America can’t get over slavery and its consequences. Everything in America begins with race or ends with race. This incident is over until the next time.

I believe a separate doorway for Congresspersons should be established to avoid such encounters in the future. This kind of incident is not good for the police or the Members of Congress. And, the prosecutor needs a dose of old time gumption.

I'm sorry, but I do not see her doing what is best for her Country, as feeding her own agenda.

How is assaulting a Police Officer doing what is best for her Country?
How is race baiting doing what is best for anyone, except to draw more attention to her?

I think that quite possibly she is the poorest example of a public servant I have ever seen.

Semper

The woman embarrasses me to be an Atlantian every time I see her on TV. She's the epitome of what's wrong with my political party.

Atlanta, where every day is an opening day, and every day Cynthia gets a little more crazy!

-O

Originally posted by The Big O
The woman embarrasses me to be an Atlantian every time I see her on TV. She's the epitome of what's wrong with my political party.

Atlanta, where every day is an opening day, and every day Cynthia gets a little more crazy!

-O

See, this is a case in point. Could you share with the class why you think Cynthia is crazy?

Okay... first, I've met her, personally. I've shaken hands with the woman...before I was aware of who she was. I mean, yes, I knew she was a congresswoman, actually, at the time she wasn't, she was running for the seat she lost.

Any way, I'm at this political rally and I shook hands with her. I looked the woman in the eye, and you know what, she was a bit off. Granted, this is my personal opinion, and my first impression, but as of that time I hadn't heard or seen much of her on TV.

Then, I had to sit through her antics on local TV. It's a conspiracy this, it's a conspiracy that. She lost her seat to another black woman, last time, but only because the Republicans gave her money. Then, she wanted people to vote for her because she was more black than the other woman.

Blah blah blah.. it goes on. I'm at a park, and here's McKinney speaking on some podium about some 9/11 conspiracy and about taking back what rightfully belongs to the black community.

If you really want more exampled I'll see what I can do, maybe even dig up some local news clips. But, having personally met the woman, she didn't seem all there to me. Sure, it was a breif handshake, but her words and actons since then haven't done much to change my first impression of her.

-O


EDIT: And no, when I met her she did not have her crazy hair do like she does now.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by The Big O]

posted by The Big O

Okay . . first, I've met her, personally. I've shaken hands with the woman . . before I was aware of who she was. Any way, I'm at this political rally and I shook hands with her. I looked the woman in the eye, and you know what, she was a bit off.
[Edited by Don W]

Hey, wasn’t it our own Geo W who said he had looked Vladimir Putin “in the eye” and saw a “man we can trust?” I wonder if Geo W still is so sure of his ability to “look a man in the eye?” He almost slipped and repeated that hokum he’s so well known for, after the visit to Iraq when he said he had looked Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in the face but stopped, recalling apparently how he had boasted about “born again” President Putin.

Watch that looking in the eye stuff, BigO. It can be tricky!

Maybe...maybe...the lady still seemed a bit off to me. Could have been that she had been rushed around all day, could have been something else. I was giving her the benefit if the doubt at the time. However, since then, she hasn't exactly been a stellar example of a congresswoman for her constituency, but thats my opinion, and I'm not in her constituency. If I was, I'd sure hope I had a better Democrat to vote for.

-O

Originally posted by The Big O
EDIT: And no, when I met her she did not have her crazy hair do like she does now.

What is so crazy about her hair?

You tell me, she's the one who said all this hoopla was "much ado about a hairdo." Her hair appears, and I use the word appears on purpose, frazzeled and unkept.

Fact is, she doesn't put a lot of emphasis into her appearance, and if she is paying someone to dress her and do her hair, she needs to fire them. Relatively speaking, in my opinion, she has the worst look of any of the female members of the congressional black caucus.

-O

Originally posted by The Big O
Relatively speaking, in my opinion, she has the worst look of any of the female members of the congressional black caucus.

Thank goodness that's not the barometer for identifying a good politician. It's this irrational response in the general public that is the main aim of the establishment. Discredit McKinney and her message is discredited by association.

The Big O

Regarding your first impression upon meeting her, I understand what you mean. It's hard to put into words, but sometimes you just get the feeling that all is not right in Denmark.

And your subsequent experiences prove you out, imo.

Back on topic:

Regarding her "apology", that was a bunch of bull. Very superficial. Never once did she apologize to the officer that she assaulted, nor did she truly own up to her primary role in this ridiculous waste of taxpayers money. It was nothing more than a gambit designed to show that she had "done the right thing".

Originally posted by jsobecky
The Big O

Regarding your first impression upon meeting her, I understand what you mean. It's hard to put into words, but sometimes you just get the feeling that all is not right in Denmark.

And your subsequent experiences prove you out, imo.

Back on topic:

Regarding her "apology", that was a bunch of bull. Very superficial. Never once did she apologize to the officer that she assaulted, nor did she truly own up to her primary role in this ridiculous waste of taxpayers money. It was nothing more than a gambit designed to show that she had "done the right thing".

Man she cant even apologize right, must be those bad genetics actin' up again eh?