My question for the McKinney supporters

[johnnie]

This is not to say who was in the wrong concerning the McKinney vrs. The Capitol police debate. I am wondering what the supporters of McKinney want. She went on television and called press conferences to bring out the fact that the Capitol police are racists and that is her right. The Capitol police are sending this case to the Grand Jury and trying to protect their reputation and that is their right. I don't think there is one person at DU that was there the day of the incident, so we can say for sure that none of us know the real story.

It seems to me that her supporters want everyone to know that the Capitol police are racists and that should be out in the open. On the thread that announces this being sent to the Grand Jury, her supporters are freaking out that it has gone that far. My question is, do her supporters want this to be out in the open or do they want the Capitol police to drop the charges, fire the cop and let all be fine?

Rep McKinney obviously wants this to be a major story so it can be shown to the public that there is racism going on at the Capitol, but her supporters seem to want the story out of the news. I am just a bit confused by the reaction of the people who are supporting Rep McKinney. Should this case be dropped and eventually forgotten, or should this case be brought out to the forefront like Cynthia McKinney seems to be pushing for?

No need to flame me for this, I am just wondering what her supporters want. And I mean concerning this particular case, not "peace and love and all is well for ever and ever and ever".

[ClintonTyree]

1. Good question...

:popcorn:

[Crazy Guggenheim]

2. Just in time. Move over.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[snowbear]

4. Hey Guggie..

Save me some of that popcorn!

[Crazy Guggenheim]

5. Hey I brought plenty.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[AX10]

6. I've got some too.

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[bemildred]

3. I want a big trial with lots of media coverage.

The more, the better.

[Boredtodeath]

8. Agreed.

Preferrably with some of the DU Cheerleaders for the cop on the jury - then they will hear the truth. The only remaining question would be whether or not they'd recognize it.

[johnnie]

11. So you are glad the case has been sent to the Grand jury?

[Boredtodeath]

13. Yep.

Can't wait to rub your noses in it.

[johnnie]

17. My nose?

Why would you rub my nose in it?

[Boredtodeath]

27. Because there won't BE any charges

The prosecutor is only passing this to the grand jury so he won't be tarred when he can't bring a case because there are no actionable charges.

Yes sir, I'm DAMNED glad this is going to the grand jury.

And when they return a no bill, I'll start the 1,000th thread on Cynthia McKinney in your honor.

[BooScout]

7. McKinney was not the one that publicized this to begin with....

Perhaps she felt she had no choice but to defend herself once it was in the public eye and the sharks began circling? Perhaps she wished her apology would have sufficed? Perhaps after hearing her apology she wished the Chief of the Capitol Police (who has just been forced out for nepotism btw, but that's another story) would have accepted her apology instead of sending the matter to a Federal Prosecutor? Perhaps she wished she didn't have to run a gauntlet daily thru the Capitol Police (the same force that dragged Cindy Sheehan out by force when she was an invited guest I might add).

What I want? I wish it had never happened, but it did. I want it to never have happened.....but since it did I want it to be dealt with in a professional matter.....which so far it hasn't. (on both sides I might add).

McKinney is a fireball and she is passionate about politics. She pushes the buttons on the establishment at the Democratic Headquarters and I absolutely love that she does that. She spits in the eye of that son of a bitch that sits in the White House and doesn't back down from him like just about every single other Democrat in Washington has done over the past six years. She is a burr under the butt of every single Republican in Georgia and I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE that.

What do I really want though? For someone to be considered innocent until proven guilty in America. That may be asking too much though.

[Boredtodeath]

10. You can't talk sense to these people.

They don't WANT the facts.

[snowbear]

16. Aren't you a DU'er?

[Boredtodeath]

21. Ashamed to be one lately.

Because of threads like this.

[snowbear]

23. Ok then,

But... if you say so.

[johnnie]

24. May I ask why you are ashamed from this thread?

Did I say something that is shameful?

[snowbear]

26. Shame.. Shame... Shame... on Johnnie....

[Boredtodeath]

28. Yep, it's a real shame you couldn't ADD to the 998 other threads

And felt you had to start a whole new one.

[snowbear]

30. Geez Bored..

You must be BORED! http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/duh!.gif

[johnnie]

18. Who are "these people"

:shrug:

[snowbear]

19. Beats me Johnny....... YOU started this thread....

[johnnie]

12. Fair enough

[KAZ]

Man, such an excellent post.

This thread should not only be "K'd", but "R'd", not only for Johnnie's good question, but for your most cogent reply.

[LittleClarkie]

20. I would like people to be considered innocent until proven guilty too

but I include the cop in that as well.

I think that the Republicans are trying to make political hay out of this, but that to me has no bearing on the incident itself. Neither does how I feel about her being a firebrand and/or someone who speaks truth to power.

Let it go to a jury. If she is cleared, groovy. But if the cop is deemed to have acted correctly, then that is fine as well.

[omega minimo]

36. Perhaps "nepotism" contributed to the officer's behavior

[slaveplanet]

41. Thank you

[Blue_Tires]

9. wow....

pretty soon, we're just going to need a McKinney forum

[johnnie]

15. Sorry

I thought it was a legitimate question. I have read both sides going at it for the last few days and I wanted to ask a question that I didn't know the answer to. I didn't ask if the cop was a bad guy or if McKinney is a bad woman, I just asked what do her supporters want at this point.

[bliss_eternal]

14. As one that isn't aware of the other threads

you reference in your post, I'll offer a response.

I don't necessarily agree with your assertion that this is what McKinney is pushing for. From where I sit, she's been accused of inappropriate behaviour. As such, she is defending herself and trying to clear her name. Nothing more or less than that. As a public servant, so to speak-she seems to be trying to keep things above board. Addressing things publicly because she's been accused publicly. I can respect that, and understand her desire to clear her name from this.

I personally believe the incident has been blown out of proportion by the media, the internet, people making personal assumptions, etc.

I also personally believe that a lot of this discussion may not be taking place if we weren't talking about a woman of color. As a woman of color with a constituency she cares about, she probably wants her supporters to know that there was no malice or attempt to usurp the authority of the Capitol police.

She has constituents (I think) of various ethnicities, sexes and classes--some may support her, others may have contempt for her. Those that support her won't be as tough to convince. Others that don't share her party beliefs, may have already sided with the Capitol police in this matter. As such, she is probably trying to do the best she can with a difficult situation--while also attempting to regain as much of her constituency confidence as possible.

These are the reasons I feel that she is trying to clear up the controversy in the domain it was created--the media. Those that are distrustful of her, may not be satisfied if all this was settled behind closed doors. :shrug:

Just my theories anyway.

Frankly, all the discussion about this has taken me by surprise.

[johnnie]

22. I respect that

"From where I sit, she's been accused of inappropriate behaviour. As such, she is defending herself and trying to clear her name." I can see that, but at the same time the Capitol Police can be said to be doing the same thing.

Thanks for the input. I was just wondering what her supporters think should happen now.

[bliss_eternal]

29. I didn't address the police

or what they are or are not doing, as they weren't a part of your question. You asked about Ms. Mckinney so that is what I (innocently)reponded to.

If you wanted an opportunity to debate or discuss the other side, you could have said that. And if you had, I wouldn't have responded--as I'm not interested in such.

Seeing as you did not, I will assert my opinion that your question really wasn't honest or sincere.

The fact that you've taken the opportunity to interject your opinion of the other side, says to me that you were seeking an oppportunity to have your say about the other side of the issue (the police), which is really not what you alluded to in your original post, is it?

I don't like responding to threads that are created with insincere intentions. Not cool.

Quote:
I can see that, but at the same time the Capitol Police can be said to be doing the same thing.

[johnnie]

34. Ok

I didn't start this to debate the issue, I just wanted to know what her supporters thought. I didn't mean what I said above to come out as a start of a debate. I try to respond to people who respond to my threads because I think it is a polite thing to do, and sometimes I forget that I have to watch every letter I type.

Once again thanks for your input, I appreciate it. I'll leave this sub-thread alone now.

[KAZ]

37. Class. n/t

n/t

[KAZ]

25. I say we take Boo's post above...

... combine it with Bliss's, and put it on DU's front page. Such calm insight, on a topic that has thrown this forum into a frenzy. Thanks you two.

[BooScout]

32. Awwww I'm blushing, lol

:blush:

[bliss_eternal]

33. What a nice thing to say--

thank you! :hi:

I have to be honest, I feel rather mislead, though. I was not aware this was a continuation of prior discussion on the part of the original poster. If I had I would not have responded.

I've gone out of my way to avoid threads of debate on this issue. I don't like being asked what I believe is a sincere question, only to have someone respond with "opinions of issues of the other side." That's how debates and heated discussions start, and I wanted no part of that on this issue.

[rucky]

31. I want the Capitol Police to stop harassing Liberal Women. n/t

[omega minimo]

35. The response to this event has revealed the huge presence of racism

in public that a lot of people don't seem too shocked about "even on DU."

[FloridaPat]

38. Aren't most of the capitol police Black?

[johnnie]

39. .

:shrug: Never been there.

[bemildred]

40. Yeah, actually, there have been a number of lawsuits.

By the black officers, against the department, for racism.

[bemildred]

42. D.C. Settles Lawsuit for False Arrest and Police Assault

Victim's Only Offense Was 'Parking While Black

The ACLU of the National Capital Area successfully represented Keith Coclough in seeking damages or unconstitutional actions of an off-duty Washington MPD officer. Mr. Coclough was stopped and held at gunpoint in November 2000 by an out-of-control officer, when his only offense apparently was Parking While Black.

Mr. Coclough had car trouble and left his disabled car a few blocks from his house in Northwest D.C. When he came back the next day to make repairs, a man in civilian clothes shouted from his porch that "his kind" wasn't wanted in the neighborhood and he should move his car. Stunned at such a demand (in part because both he and the angry homeowner are African-American), Coclough objected. The man bounded down his porch steps and Coclough then realized from his shiny black shoes and a radio in his hand that he was some sort of law enforcement officer. It turned out later he was an off-duty patrol officer from the MPD Third District with a history of inappropriate threats to citizens.

The enraged resident (i.e., the off-duty MPD officer) refused to show any ID and as Coclough walked away he drew his service weapon, pointed it at Mr. Coclough's head and said he was under arrest. The senseless nightmare continued for 30 minutes as the officer did a full search of Coclough, while more officers arrived to answer his radio call of "officer in distress." The additional officers handcuffed the innocent Coclough for some time as they reviewed the situation. Finding no reason for any of what had happened, they counseled their colleague to cool off and they let Coclough leave.

etc.

http://www.aclu-nca.org/page.asp?JID=36

[bemildred]

43. Charges of racism leveled against District’s police review board

Bill Myers, The Examiner
Apr 3, 2006 7:00 AM (2 days ago)

WASHINGTON - An already contentious labor dispute between the police union and a District civilian review board has escalated, with new allegations that the city is singling out minority union stewards.

The Fraternal Order of Police says the Office of Police Complaints is breaking the union contract. The office, a civilian review board that investigates police misconduct in the District, is accused of violating union members’ due process rights during investigations.

In late March, the union filed an unfair labor practices complaint, claiming the office did not hold hearings before disciplining officers; wouldn’t allow stewards to sit in on interviews with union members; and improperly allowed more than one investigator to question police officers. The union has asked a city administrative board to bar the office from conducting any other investigations unless it abides by the union contract.

District lawyers, who are defending the office, say the union contract only applies to the police department. The office is “a wholly independent agency,” city lawyers say in court filings.

http://www.examiner.com/Top_News-a66099~Charges_of_racism_leveled_against_District_s_police_review_board.html