1 I thank that great American Gomer Pyle said it best:
“Surprise, Surprise, Surprise”

2 Wow, no one saw that coming!

3 When I was living in DC, I always thought it was amusing when blacks claimed racism. You know, the city IS black. Black Mayor, Black councilmen including drug addict former mayor Marion Barry, Black Chief of Police, Black policemen. Yet somehow racism is really imbedded into the system. So imbedded that even a black Government can't get rid of it.

Well this was not an issue with the city but with the Capital police. So maybe they are not influnced by how black the city they work in is. If so, then how is it she is the ONLY one having problms?

No, not with her hair, with the police.

Next she will probably explain that the pin that she was suppossed to wear to identify her as a member of Congress is somehow racist too.

4 Exactly, all she had to do was wear the pin. But no, what she really wants is special treatment, not equal treatment. And this is what is at the crux of the problem. She should be censured by the full House, as she is a national disgrace.

5 Don't worry, she'll hang with the liberals, muslims, and illegals when the time comes.

6 I don't think the media mentioned the race of the security guard. They also didn't mention how long the guard has been on the job. If he was only on the job a day, and he's from Washington DC, how is he supposed to know the representative from Georgia? Also, if the security guard was white, there is the issue of cross-race identification. Blacks may not think it is an issue because caucasians have black, red, brown and blonde hair, and brown, green, hazel, and blue eyes, etc., and are easier to tell apart. Blacks, however, all have black hair and brown eyes and are harder to differentiate and recognize. To compound the situation, DC is 90-something percent black, with a mostly black government and education system, so that poor guard has to tell thousands of blacks apart.

7 improbulus_maximus@hotmail.com

8 Please don't blame all Georgians for McKinney, she only represents part of Atlanta, which really isn't Georgia at all.

9 It is laughable to see a US Congressperson behave in such an uncouth, rude, and unprofessional manner!!! Apparently the job has "gone to her head," and McKinney thinks herself the veritable "Queen of Sheeba"....well, or at least Capitol Hill!!! Ha, ha!

Of course, she already came out in a news conference today saying that "it was a black thing" (and I had thought her a rabid, feminist, white, Democrat, until I saw her picture! LOL!)

And you just know that Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jessy Jackson, and all those other "Welfare Pimp" Irreverents(...Oops! I meant "Reverends") are going to vehemently agree with her, and make of this incedent (caused by her being a "snobbish, entitled, bitch," in any color) a "racial" issue!!!

It would be pathetic if it wasn't so funny!

LOL!

Althor

10 I wonder what some idiot liberal thought they were going to accomplish by posting my e-mail address, as if it wasn't already on every post? Jesus H., liberals are stupid. I should post my address as that of the city dump, and listen for news reports of gargabe men being stalked and assaulted by people wearing tin-foil hats.

11 What has she done for her constituents besides introducing controversial legislation for a criminal rapper and make a fuss at entries to governmental buildings? McKinney has a real chip on her shoulder and it didn't just get there recently.

12 CORRECTION:........"just a victim of being a member of congress while being...........STUPID, MEAN-SPIRITED RACIST, and AMERICA HATING........"

13 McKinney has been known to be a crackpot for years, and why blacks and liberal whites in Atlanta would elect this idiot is beyond me. Suffice it to say they are getting the representation they deserve.

14 McKinney is a joke - symptomatic of the community that sent her to Congress. She made a fool of herself in the past - lost her seat - then simply changed addresses to win another. Her constituents deserve her.

15 Decisions, decisions. On which side would she have guards error? Is it better to error on the side of caution injuring her fragile ego, or to allow a terrorist who looks vaguely familiar to bypass the checkpoint and give her the special treatment she has richly earned?

16 That crazy bitch has been good comedy for years. But don't kid yourself. She has an agenda, just not much tact. And as assinine as she appears, she is smart. Me thinks the blacks in congress were looking for a way to take attention away from the mexican protests and bring the focus back to the "black thing". Remember, she was the jackass who was willing to take the money that Rudy G. turned down from the Arabian Sheik (sp)? And, she is a second generation nut case. Her dad is and old scholl racist with a particular distain for jews. He blamed jews for her previous loss in her re-election bid 4 + years ago. Publicly and with a straight face. But facts are, she did not have on her pin, and it is as much her responsability to make sure the gaurds know she is a non-threat, (personally I think she is more dangerous than UBL), She screwed up. Turn her over to the House for discplinary action.

17 That crazy bitch has been good comedy for years. But don't kid yourself. She has an agenda, just not much tact. And as assinine as she appears, she is smart. Me thinks the blacks in congress were looking for a way to take attention away from the mexican protests and bring the focus back to the "black thing". Remember, she was the jackass who was willing to take the money that Rudy G. turned down from the Arabian Sheik (sp)? And, she is a second generation nut case. Her dad is and old school racist with a particular distain for jews. He blamed jews for her previous loss in her re-election bid 4 + years ago. Publicly and with a straight face. But facts are, she did not have on her pin, and it is as much her responsability to make sure the gaurds know she is a non-threat, (personally I think she is more dangerous than UBL), She screwed up. Turn her over to the House for discplinary action.

18 DC is about 65% black, not 90%.

McKinney is loopy, and her dad is an anti-semite.

On the other hand, many white members do not wear their pins, and don't get hassled. The crossracial identification problem is real, as one poster pointed out.

But let's put this in perspective--the Vice President SHOOTS SOMEONE IN THE FACE accidentally, and no one here thought of charging him with negligence, etc. Despite the admitted presence of alcohol, he kept quiet, avoided an investigation for 14 hours. For all anyone here knows, he was drunk when he shot his friend in broad daylight.

McKinney hit/tapped a cop in the chest with a cellphone.

No blood. No injury. No hospital. No ambulance. No delay in notifying police.

McKinney is, as I said, loopy. But let's keep some perspective in calling for her arrest, expulsion, etc.

JD

19 Oh, and one more thing--Cheney was hunting illegally--ie, without a license. If you or I shot someone while hunting wihtout a license...well, we'd have a lot more problems than Cheney did.

I'd say that is at least as bad as not wearing your pin...Cheney apologized, and paid the 10 bucks retroactively. Next time you shoot someone at close range while hunting, see if you can get that kind of treatment. If McKinney is asking for special treatment, she surely is not alone in that.

20 QUOTE: CORRECTION:........"just a victim of being a member of congress while being a..........STUPID, MEAN-SPIRITED RACIST, and AMERICA HATING........"

Posted by n.a. palm at April 1, 2006 07:41 AM



Kudos n.a.palm!!! Coudn't have been said better! Of course, as she claims in her conflicting allegations, this is either "a black thing" and or about "police brutality"! Take your pick.

I wonder if perhaps they should require IQ tests of all prospective candidates for Congress and the Senate! LOL

However, I wouldn't be surprised if McKinney would be outraged at such a proposal, alleging it "discriminates blacks"!!!

LOL! What a moron in any color....even "Technicolor"!


Althor

21 QUOTE: I'd say that is at least as bad as not wearing your pin...Cheney apologized, and paid the 10 bucks retroactively. Next time you shoot someone at close range while hunting, see if you can get that kind of treatment. If McKinney is asking for special treatment, she surely is not alone in that.

Posted by: jd at April 1, 2006 02:27 PM


LMAO! Another "Bash Bush" McKinney apologist!

Sure, she deserves special treatment too! Next time, let McKinney shoot the Officer in the face, then go register the gun, apologize, and pay the $10 fee on her "Honky Hunting License"... retroactively, like Cheney did. Fair enough?!?! Hah, hah, hah!!!

It just keep getting more ridiculous!


Althor

22 jd,

I've never heard of anyone being charged with a crime for a clearly accidental shooting. And no delay in McKinney notifying police, are you a complete idiot? Hell, man, it was a policeman she hit.

And negligence in itself is not a crime. If that were so, we would all be in jail, because we have all been negligent about something in our lives. Geez, man, what the hell?

23 You've never heard of someone being charged with a crime for an accidental shooting? You don't read all that much, do you? Accidental shootings keep a lot of courts really busy. Took me about 2 seconds to find one case online, dozens more were available. Before you say something, try and find out if it is even within a country mile of true.

Also, duh, negligence is a crime in most states--in others, they use a different word, but the same concept applies.
****
Madison man will spend 18 months in prison for the accidental shooting death of a 17-year-old girl.

Tamis Bolden was sentenced Thursday morning in Dane County Court, WISC-TV reported.

Bolden was showing his new gun to Sara Ouk in her west Madison home last July when it went off and she was killed.

Bolden emotionally apologized to Ouk's family in court on Thursday.

"I'm sorry; I'm so sorry," Bolden said. "I see your tears; it hurts my heart."

Thursday the victim's sister, Sarrut Ouk, spoke about the loss.

"The pain is too powerful to try to hold it in or set it to the side," she said. "Sara is gone, and she's not coming back."

Bolden will also serve five years extended supervision

24 Here's what a law looks like:684.03 Reckless or Careless Use of Guns.

No person shall use, employ or discharge any gun in a reckless or careless manner or so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Let's be clear--I'm not saying that I think Cheney should have been charged. That's beyond my info and expertise. I'm saying that of the two allegations, McKinney's and Cheney's, Cheney's is by FAR the more serious. I'd put it on a continuum--Chappaquiddick way over here, McKinney way over on the other side, and Cheney in the middle.

25 Here's the criminal negligence law in CT--as I said, almost all states have one. Again, I'm not claiming that Cheney should be charged with criminal negligence--I'm saying it is a common crime, it is worth investigating, and the fact that he didn't report it for hours meant that we will never know if he was inebriated when he shot his friend in the face at close range. Just ask yourself--if this were Al Gore, and it were 1999...wouldn't you be suspicious of a coverup? If you were one of the Vince Foster conspiracy theory enthusiasts--well, I don't see how you could not want an investigation of Cheney with this fact pattern.

''A person acts with 'criminal negligence' with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.'' Proof of that mental state requires that the failure to perceive the risk must be a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable man; thus, it requires a greater degree of culpability than the civil standard of negligence. The standard of conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation as the defendant is the doing of something that a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances or omitting to do what a reasonably prudent person would not do under the circumstances.

A gross deviation is a great or substantial deviation, not just a slight or moderate deviation. There must be a great or substantial difference between, on the one hand, the defendant's conduct in failing to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and, on the other hand, what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. Whether the risk is substantial and unjustifiable is a question of fact for you to determine under the circumstances.

The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental state involved in criminal negligence. Proof of that mental state requires that the failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur must be a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable person.

26 Well, now, jd, if you use the Ct. statute you quoted, then the man shot by Cheney might be guilty of that. After all, he walked right up to a guy about to discharge a shotgun.

But again, you are trying to compare apples and oranges. You are trying to equate something that is accidental to something that was clearly intentional and looks to be a criminal assualt. If you can't see the difference, please, you need some help.

27 I agree intentionality separates the two situations. I never suggested otherwise. So does the gravity of the outcomes, and the level of knowledge we have about them. I'll accept that you now realize that accidental shootings ARE, in fact, treated as criminal some of the time? I'll also assume that you now realize that negligence, contra your earlier claim, is in fact a crime?

They are, of course, different situations. And there are principled liberals who said, you know what? this shit is crazy, that McKinney is using the race card (there's an excellent one linked on Andrewsullivan.com). But pretending that tapping someone's chest with a cellphone is more serious than nearly killing someone? Or that one requires charges, and the other does not even require investigation?

Who needs help here, again?

28 QUOTE: But pretending that tapping someone's chest with a cellphone is more serious than nearly killing someone? Or that one requires charges, and the other does not even require an investigation?

Who needs help here, again?

Posted by jd at April 2, 2006 07:02 PM



Who needs help here??? You do, moron!!!



An "accident," is not an "act of aggression": "battery"!!!

Cheney's hunting accident was investigated by the local authorities when it occurred. And even the victim, who all along said it had been his fault for coming up without announcing himself, was appalled by how this "accident" was being "spinned" by the Media and their Left-wing Democratic demagogue "Masters," and said so publicly!!!

And "assaulting" a police officer, even with a
"little" "weeny," "tiny," "bitty" "tap" on the chest, after being hailed to stop by the officer as she "tip-toed through the tulips" to avoid the Security Checkpoint, is "ASSAULT" and does merit not only an "investigation,"
but that charges should be filed!


You should seek Psychiatric help for those with "Loosing the Election in 2000 Denial Anxiety Syndrome." Apparently you suffer from the malady.


Althor

29 JD, as a liberal and an idiot, (but then, I'm being redundant), you can't be expected to understand the intricacies of bird hunting. You see, when you're out in a field after birds, everyone is supposed to stay in line so that nobody steps into someone else's fire, like what happened to Whittington, who said that he was out of position, and that it was his fault. Of course Cheney, being a man of honor and integrity, i.e. a gentleman, (look it up), said it was his own fault because he was the one who pulled the trigger. They're both right, but since they're both men of some years, they can be forgiven their mistakes, even if the consequences were more dire, in the same manner that nobody makes a big deal about people who are too old to be driving around, and who represent a much greater danger to society at large than a couple of men on a quail hunt. It's just too bad they didn't flush Cindy Sheehan out there.

30 I don't think I suffer from the 2000 syndrome, as I didn't vote for Gore that year--I voted libertarian.

I also don't know how IM gleaned that I was a liberal from my post, although idiot may be an easier diagnosis. The immediate association of idiot with liberal is one that troubles me, though. Many, many liberals have been brilliant by any definition of the word. Agree or disagree with them, you end up looking pretty dumb if you can't see the ratiocinative brilliance of, say, Felix Franfurter, John Rawls, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., etc etc. Now, being brilliant does not mean someone is right. After all, Paul Wolfowitz is really smart, but his ideas on Iraq and his predictions have been shown to be quite wrong. I don't think it is helpful to label him an idiot because of that. I'm not a conservative, but there are many brilliant conservatives, who I read with respect and interest. Are you really convinced that liberal equals idiot? On EVERY issue? Even a blind pig finds an acorn from time to time!

I was aware that the local authorities "looked into" the shooting. My point was that there was a substantial delay between the shooting and the notification of the authorities. If the VP was drinking after lunch (he admitted to drinking at lunch) he had enough time to get it out of his system. That concerns me. And again, next time you are hunting without a license, and you have been drinking, and you almost kill someone...you see if you get that kind of treatment.

31 And has it reached the point where we wish that our political enemies get shot? I don't agree with Cindy Sheehan on a lot of things, but I wouldn't cheer if she were shot in the head. I think her family has suffered enough bloodshed, don't you?

32 jd,

You have been suffiently eviserated, I suppose, but your suggestion that a criminal assault is somehow lesser of an offense than an accident gets our brains to going. And to defend such a proven aggressive racist as McKinney sure makes you look like an idiot liberal. Sorry, that's how it appears out here in the trenches. At least you didn't defend Teddy Kennedy, so I guess you can be rehabilitated.

33 Joe--if your abilities at biblical exegesis equal your abilities at blog exegesis, I'm concerned about your immortal soul. Where did you get the idea I'm defending McKinney? I think I said she was loopy and hiding behind the race card. If you missed it, I just said it again. If that's defense, I'd hate to see what attack is. All I'm doing is putting it in perspective. I think the right way way way overreacted to the death of Vince Foster, and made a personal tragedy into a family and political nightmare with incessant disproved conspiracy theories. What I don't understand is how some of the same people can call for Cheney's rapid exoneration, even though the delay in the investigation is highly unusual and gives him a way of avoiding the alcohol test that would be standard if you or I did this. Furthermore--when put into the context of Cheney's accidental shooting, the INTENTIONAL tapping/hitting upon the chest of a police officer becomes much more likely to be seen in the appropriate light.

I think this misunderstanding will be resolved without charges...and probably should be. McKinney is loopy, and in the wrong here. But criminal charges? Please. Get a grip. Just because you hate her is no reason to politicize the law. Down that road lies tyranny.

34 I didn't defend McKinney. I said she was loopy. I also said playing the race card here is wrong. But I argued for perspective. Many on the right took the Vince Foster tragedy and investigated it way beyond the point of sanity, causing extraordinary pain to his family and friends. Yet when Cheney nearly kills someone, after drinking, while hunting without a license, and avoids a breathalyzer that you or I would have faced...no story there! So, compared to your calls for blood with McKinney, your lack of attention to Cheney calls into question your objectivity.

But no, I'm not defending her.

35 Sorry for overlapping comments! I thought I was getting censored when I didn't see the first comment, turns out I was looking at an old copy of the page.

36 jd, c'mon, tell the truth and shame the Devil - you didn't vote for Gore because you weren't old enough to vote in 2000.

37 It is so utterly absurd for anyone to resurrect that "dead horse" of a story of Cheney's hunting accident in order to "spin," and "justify" the latest tantrum of that uncouth, mean-spirited, racist, America-hating moron, McKinney!!!

It is pitiful that such a "compulsive obsession" to bash, defame, and obstruct the Administration and its policies, is the only driving force of most Liberals, and the only "idea" the Democrats and their Left-wing Loony Masters can bring to the table; their only "comprehensive" agenda, in these most difficult times facing the nation!!!

Damn terrorist threats, National Security, being overrun by swarms of illegal immigrants, or the looming nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea, "let's bash Bush and Cheney"!!! That's the Democrat's only position, their greatest priority, and their "Contract with America"!!!

Perhaps Vice President Cheney should be "Magnanimous," and setting aside all hard feelings about the vicious and unfair treatment he has often received at the hands of David Gregory; that poor excuse of a "White House Press Corp Piranha" for a journalist, who often scours the sewers of Washington, bottle in hand, for the least whiff of “effluent” coming from the White House, and who made such a stink about “not having been told more promptly,” about such a “monumental” incident of “International repercussion,” in his opinion, as was Cheney’s unfortunate but meaningless accident, and was responsible for making of it in the Media “much ado about nothing;” have the kindness to invite him, McKinney, and Cindy Sheehan, to go "Quail Hunting" with him one of these days in Texas....sort of “killing three birds with one stone”...and just make sure to carry an elephant gun with him this time, with cartridges packed with much bigger caliber pellets, instead of his usual 12 caliber and birdshot....

To think that if Cheney did this, he could not only do humanity a favor, and our country a great service, but could actually become the “Poster Boy” for a new Haliburton venture.... in the “pest control” business: “Exterminating rabid vermin”! LOL!!!


LMAO!!!


Althor

38 Wow, Althor, you really are full of hate, aren't you? You just made a very funny joke (uh...right) about the VP shooting two of his political opponents and a member of the media.

Seriously, calm down there, cowboy. Politics is a dirty enough business without hoping for the violent deaths of people we disagree with. That kind of rhetoric is far more appropriate to nations wracked by death squads, ethnic killings, kidnappings, and incipient civil war...you know, like the liberated paradise of Iraq...

39 Uh, sorry to disappoint, DPB, but I voted libertarian in 2000. First Dem for prez I ever voted for was Kerry.

40 You just don't have a sense of humor JD!!!

LOL!


Althor

41 Besides....it would only be an accident. Ooops!

LMAO!!!

Althor

42 Oooh that's right jd, the Left isn't really fussy about things like letting 15 year olds vote, are they?

43 Actually, it was Robert A. Heinlein who advocated removing the voting age entirely, and replacing it with a quadratic problem--before you can vote, you have to do some math. As he put it, smart 12 year old girls could vote, but not 45 year old nimrods. (I don't endorse those views--seem pretty elitist to me--but that's what your question reminded me of-and Heinlein was not a man of the left, to put it mildly).

No, I legally voted in 2000, for the libertarians.

44 You didn't have any sense in 2000 either, jd.