McKinney Apologizes

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) just made an apology on the House floor for her run-in with a Capitol Police officer last week, and said she'll be voting for some bill to praise the professionalism and dedication of the Capitol cops.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Shit. This was going to be fun to watch.

  • Captain Holly||

    Looks like the Bigwigs at the DNC finally talked some sense into her.

    Either that, or her poll numbers are dropping.

  • ||

    Hahahahahaha. Aren't you supposed to make a beeping sound when you back up that suddenly?

  • ||

    I would like her to vote for some bill praising the people who talked sense into her.

  • ||

    Based on my reading of this early news story about her "apology," it wasn't an apology at all. It was a statement that she's sorry it happened and that there shouldn't have been ANY touching. Since the officer touched her first (and then she punched him), she seems to be weaseling out of making any real apology for HER specific actions.

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/06/D8GQK0UO0.html

  • ||

    I would like my Congress not to waste their -- and my -- time and their salaries (i.e. my taxes) on "some bill to praise the professionalism and dedication of the Capitol cops." Isn't there anything IMPORTANT you assholes could be dealing with?

  • ||

    Daivid:

    She ended her statement with, "I apologize."

  • ||

    "Since the officer touched her first (and then she punched him)"

    I keep seeing people use formulations like this. "He put his hand on her, and she slugged him..." or "He stopped her, and she punched him."

    I still haven't seen any evidence whatsoever regarding how hard either of them touched the other, but I see a lot of people spouting off confidently that she landed a Tyson-esque body blow.

  • ||

    Phil,
    As per your request, they will get right back to passing annoying regulations and such.

  • ||

    and spending more of your as yet unearned money.

  • ||

    Phil

    The more time they spend on this, the less time they'll have to steal our money.

  • ||

    Question: Can McKinney's apology be used as evidence against her either at the Grand Jury or at trial? I'm not a lawyer. Does the "Speech or Debate" clause protect her?

  • ||

    Why do some people feel that a cop can grab,touch or hit you anytime they feel it is necessary? Once the cop physically assaulted her, I feel that she was well within her rights to defend herself given the fact that she had done nothing wrong. I have yet to see any rational argument for giving police the power to use physical force anytime they want.

  • ||

    Scott: This particular cop was authorized to use physical force to detain unauthorized entrants. McKinney did not authorize, or stop, therefore the cop was justified.

    He wasn't using force anytime he wanted, but as part of his duties when telling her to stop didn't work. How else do you suggest he carry out his job of keeping the capitol safe if he can't grab people he doesn't recognize who barge in without identification and refuse verbal commands to stop?

  • ||

    If only we could find a way to forceably stop the remaining Members of Congress from coming to work as well.

  • ||

    ... and before I get arrested, the above is a joke. Seriously, though, as much as I find McKinney's behavior, as reported, objectionable, it amazes me that anyone thinks this is newsworthy.

  • ||

    Should've tasered the hoe.

  • ||

    So anytime a police officer demands ID or papers you are forced to comply under the threat of physical force? She is a member of Congress and is allowed to bypass security and enter the building. The fact that the officer did not recognize her does not change the fact that he assaulted a person that had done nothing wrong. Are you advocating preemptive assaults by police officers based only on the mere suspicion of a crime? Are you also OK with the criminalization of any attempt to defend yourself against the unlawful actions of the police?

  • ||

    Scott:

    At the same time, if you're such an oversensitive twat that a police officer touching you on the shoulder constitutes "assault", then, well, I have very little sympathy.

    Meanwhile, crooked Mayberry-cops-cum-paramilitary-SWAT-teamers break into houses and shoot people all the time (and kill their poor pups)...for little more than possessing minute amounts of a particular herb. So excuse me if I don't get all worked into a lather because a cop touched someone's motherfucking shoulder without permission. If that's the worst thing this fucker did, then, we should consider ourselves lucky.

    Meanwhile, if some random CIVILIAN came up to you and put their hand on your shoulder, would you instinctively put a roundhouse on the dude? Or would you investigate further before resorting to physical response?

  • ||

    Well put Evan. I'm all for ending police abuses but stopping someone who isnt' immediately recognized at a security checkpoint doesn't rank high on my list of abuses to correct. I'm sure that the elite who work in that building have a lot to do with the security procedures in place. If they think it's too stringent, relax it, if not, they might occasionally be mistaken for one us serfs.

  • ||

    Almost forgot, I saw the "apology" on the news this morning. "I regret that any touching occurred". Very Clintonian. I'm starting to wonder if Mckinney had sex with the cop?:)

  • ||

    Scott:
    It was a freaking security checkpoint. Cops stop people at security checkpoints. You do not hit cops when they stop you at security checkpoints, even if they make a mistake in stopping you. Enforcing a security checkpoint at a capitol, one that was assaulted 7 years ago by a deranged gunman who managed to kill 2 of these Capitol Police officers, is certainly a legitimate function of government.

    My understanding is that Congresscritters may bypass these security checkpoints. My understanding is that they are supposed to wear little medallions/pins whatever that act as their security badge to bypass these checkpoints. My understanding is that Rep McKinney was not wearing hers. This leads me to the conclusion that the cop was justified in using reasonable force to stop her, and McKinney is truly a wacka-doo for making an issue out of this when she was clearly wrong.

  • ||

    If you want the congressional privilege of skipping the security line, you should wear your frickin' ID. How hard is this? Why must you make it more difficult for the cops to do their jobs?

    If your fashion sense doesn't allow you to wear the congressional pin, then the least you can do is announce your presence to the cops as you go past the detector.

    Unidentified people who blow through security should be tasered.

  • ||

    Why do I keep flashing back to Seinfeld?

    "You gotta wear the ribbon!"

  • ||

    I suggest a compromise. From now on, cops can touch any non-congressional citizen's shoulder any time he wants for any reason. In return, any politician of any kind who commits any infraction of any kind, however small or innocuous, is tasered to the floor and then torn to small bloody shreds by police dogs specially trained to go into a frenzy at the smell of politician blood.

  • ||

    "Meanwhile, if some random CIVILIAN came up to you and put their hand on your shoulder, would you instinctively put a roundhouse on the dude?"

    Of course I would; what else would a real man do?

  • ||

    When cops can stop from passing through a security checkpoint without ID, the terrorists have won.

  • ||

    When cops can stop from passing through a security checkpoint without ID, the terrorists have won.

    Actually, when people are rendered so helpless against aggression that there are security checkpoints everywhere, the terrorists have won.

    It's just an interesting question who the terrorists are.

  • ||

    Actually, when people are rendered so helpless against aggression that there are security checkpoints everywhere, the terrorists have won.

    It's just an interesting question who the terrorists are.


    I agree completely. So, is the entrance to the Capitol building of the US an inappropriate location for a security checkpoint? I think we can agree that we haven't quite reached that point yet.

  • ||

    How come Jim Trafficant could act like an idiot and be colorful, while Cynthia is treated like a disgrace and a threat to the Republic. There couldn't be different rules for white men and black women, could there?

  • Viking Moose||

    what would that be, Alan, one is in jail, the other in congress?

  • Captain Holly||

    Of course I would; what else would a real man do?

    Chuck Norris, 2:58 PM

    Chuck Norris doesn't roundhouse people. People mash their faces into Chuck Norris' fist.

  • ||

    Jim Trafficant

    So is he still doing that in-depth research into the federal prison system?

  • ||

    "How come Jim Trafficant could act like an idiot and be colorful, while Cynthia is treated like a disgrace and a threat to the Republic. There couldn't be different rules for white men and black women, could there?"

    Good point! They should have tasered that hoe, and then put her ass in the slammer in the cell next to Trafficant.

  • ||

    Kids can't get into school without a picture I.D. on display. Is that too much to ask for people trying to bypass security at a government building??

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement