I’m a bit behind the curve on this, but Cynthia McKinney apologized Thursday for hitting a Capitol police officer. Er, sorta. Here is her full statement:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I come before this body to personally express, again, my sincere regret about the encounter with the Capitol Hill Police. I appreciate my colleagues who are standing with me, who love this institution and who love this country. There should not have been any physical contact in this incident. I have always supported law enforcement, and will be voting for H. Res. 756 expressing my gratitude and appreciation to the professionalism and dedication of the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police. I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation. And I apologize.
This came after considerable prodding from the Congressional Black Caucus, apparently. Well, good for them. As for McKinney, it goes without saying that if you or I had hit a cop, we’d be in jail awaiting our arraignment, not having discussions with our colleagues about whether to issue a half-hearted apology that doesn’t really take responsibility for anything (”this misunderstanding”), uses lovely “mistakes were made”-type passive language (”its escalation”), and suggests that both parties were to blame (”should not have been any physical contact”). So forgive me for not being overly impressed. (Previous post here.)
|
Categories: Elections & Politics (U.S.)
|
April 9th, 2006 at 3:39:32 pm
Brendan,
As any NDLS student who attended the winter semi-formal at Covalesky Stadium can attest, a physical altercation with a police officer does not always result in an arraignment for the assault. In many situations, the police/prosecutor will examine what provoked the physical contact, evaluate the damage done, and make a pragmatic decision about what is most appropriate. I don’t think it would be at all unreasonable for McKinney to escape without being charged. It would reflect the fact that she was unnecessarily accosted by an officer for not wearing her ID. Of course she should have been wearing the ID and should NOT have struck the officer, but the wrongfulness of her action is, to a degree, mitigated by the circumstances. And let’s be honest, even if she is not charged, it’s not as if she’ll escape without punishment. The bad press has been sufficient to provoke an embarassed and humble apology.
April 9th, 2006 at 6:36:46 pm
Pragmatist - it might be an embarrassed apology, but it sure isn’t a humble one, nor does it seem particularly contrite … if anything, it reads more like “I’m sorry everyone is making such an unnecessary fuss about it …” …
I have to admit the “There should not have been any physical contact in this incident.” sounds more like “That dumb cop shoulda ducked faster !” …
April 9th, 2006 at 7:02:04 pm
Amen to Alasdair. No way is that apology “humble,” Pragmatist. Give me a break. Some of your other points might have some pretensions to validity, but if you call that apology “humble,” I’d hate to think what it would take for an apology to qualify as half-hearted in your book.
As for being “unnecessarily accosted by an officer for not wearing her ID,” I wonder what you (and McKinney) would say if a terrorist or gunman was able to get into the Capitol because a police officer failed to accost him, believing it “unnecessary” because the officer mistook him for one of the FIVE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIVE members of Congress (that’s a lot of faces to remember and be able to recognize with 100% certainty). Again, give me a break. Police officers must be given VERY BROAD discretion in terms of who they stop; they MUST err on the side of caution, and stop someone if there is the slightest reason to worry. When the only “burden” on the members of Congress is to simply show some freakin’ ID, this should be not even be an issue. Period. If we were talking about some onerous action — like, say, if this were a case where someone was kept off an airplane (not merely having their bag searched, but missing the flight) for some very flimsy reason in the name of security — or, worse, if this was like that air marshal thing, where it’s a life-or-death snap decision — I could at least see the argument. But when all the officer did is ask for ID, it’s ridiculous in this day and age to talk about the officer’s action being “unnecessary” and thus even partially justifying some sort of rage by McKinney. Unless the facts reveal that the officer was physically rough with her, or called her a racial slur or something, there simply is absolutely NO justification for being anything other than courteous to the officer. Anyone who berates, let alone assaults, security officials for doing their jobs out of a misplaced sense of pique and self-righteous outrage has a serious attitude problem. As I wrote earlier:
We live in a dangerous world. People who are offended by police officers and security officials just doing their jobs are idiots, plain and simple. It’s like going through airport security and raising a fuss because they search your bag or whatever. Give me a freakin’ break. Save your sense of pique for actual bad behavior by cops, don’t waste it on situations where you’re personally offended that they would dare suspect you of anything. Myself, anytime I have a bag searched, I always make it a point to thank the TSA folks when they finish. They’re doing their best to keep me safe! Just like that cop was doing his best to keep McKinney safe! Ungrateful bitch.
April 9th, 2006 at 7:05:15 pm
“This came after considerable prodding from the Congressional Black Caucus, apparently.”
From TV commentary the day of the “apology” I got the impression that they had Summoned the sister to a Special meeting & pretty much Laid down the Law At her, in no Uncertain terms y’know. / But maybe I was Reading into it. Hearing Into it. Whatever. :> Anyways something sure Spun her around right sudden. Not that the “apology” was Abject, not hardly; but it was still a Far cry from her previous Pugnacity. (I mean in the Media, not upside the cop’s head, though there’s That too.)
April 9th, 2006 at 7:15:27 pm
I don’t think it would be at all unreasonable for McKinney to escape without being charged.
You might be right. That’s for someone else, with more information than either of us, to decide. But certainly, if she wasn’t a Congresswoman, she would have at least been taken down to the station and booked, no? I wasn’t at Covalesky Stadium, but the person in question did get hauled down to the station, no? Whether or not formal charges are ultimately filed, you think Joe Schmo from Anytown, USA would have been immediately released — not even held for questioning — after hitting a cop? Or, forget Joe Schmo from Anytown (or South Bend), how about a poor African-American resident of McKinney’s own district? I’d thinking the brother would still be in jail right now, awaiting the prosecutor’s decision… not sitting in his office, debating whether to apologize, while awaiting the prosecutor’s decision. Which makes McKinney’s claim of racial profiling all the more ridiculous and offensive. She’s getting special treatment in a good way (from her perspective), not a bad way. Not on account of her race, but on account of her status.
But that wasn’t my central point anyway. My central point is how absolutely ridiculous it is that she has been so reluctant to even apologize, and indeed, STILL hasn’t actually, legitimately, contritely, humbly apologized — a ridiculousness that is made clear when you contrast her situation to the hypothetical situation of someone with less power and privilege than she.
April 9th, 2006 at 7:19:30 pm
Oh, and speaking of “special treatment”… let’s open up another can of worms…
If, instead of Cynthia McKinney, it were an equally wingnutty Republican who were in trouble with the law and issued an “apology” along these lines … suppose, for example, Tom Tancredo had assaulted an advocate of illegal immigrants’ rights, and the rest of the facts followed the same path as this story … do you think the New York Times would uncritically parrot the “apology” without parsing it at all to observe that it’s not really contrite in any way, shape, or form? Do you think the Times would offer an essentially glowing account of the congressperson in question, basically painting him as a controversial and quirky but ultimately lovable weirdo who speaks his mind and is to be commended for it? Don’t even try to tell me that’s not the message of this article, because it’s clear as day. And of course, the answer to my rhetorical question is, no way in hell would the Times write about a hypothetical Tancredo incident the way it’s writing about this very real McKinney incident. “Special treatment”? Check.
April 9th, 2006 at 9:19:02 pm
McKinney was clearly out of line, not only in her reaction but in playing the race card, which brings up another thing that has always bothered me. How can we expect to get rid of racism and race problems in this country when we have groups, like the Congressional Black Caucus, whose stated purpose is to promote the rights of a group based specifically on race?
Now I’m sure that some, hopefully most of their motivation comes from the idea of helping black people overcome injustices and prejudices that keep them from being equal, but it seems to me that there is a significant and vocal group of blacks in this country who are hell bent on blaming their problems on everyone else and are unwilling to do anything about it themselves, and in addition aren’t interested in being equal so much as become the ones on top themselves. And when people like Bill Cosby try and point this out they are villified for it.
I mean why is it that of the various minorities out there, the group that seems to have the most problems is the black community? the community who has been here longer and should, therefore not have the same problems in terms of learning the language, etc that other imigrant groups do?
April 9th, 2006 at 9:20:49 pm
you think Joe Schmo from Anytown, USA would have been immediately released � not even held for questioning � after hitting a cop?
In all fairness Joe Schmo from Anytown, USA wouldn’t have been allowed to schedule his own interview time with the police after shooting someone in the face either.
April 9th, 2006 at 10:02:41 pm
Indeed not, but at least Cheney wasn’t claiming that he was the victim of discrimination, as McKinney did. That’s what makes her special treatment so galling for me — that she’s actually claiming to be the victim of discrimination (against black people) when in reality she is benefitting from discrimination (in favor of powerful people).
April 9th, 2006 at 11:30:46 pm
Brendan et al,
You’re reading too much into my words. By “unnecessarily” I did not intend to convey that the officer shouldn’t have accosted her. His job required it, clearly. I meant to express that, in hindsight, the accosting was not necessary to ensure the safety of the members of Congress. But of course hindsight is 20/20.
This, however, all underscores my original point. Because it became clear that the officer, in faithfully executing his duties, accosted an actual member of Congress, the wrongfullness of McKinney’s actions is somewhat diminished and perhaps insufficient to warrant an arrest.
Put another way, the officer did the right thing, and, if another person whom he does not recognize were to try to enter the Capitol without presenting valid identification, he should do the exact same thing. However, it seems highly probable that McKinney viewed the officer’s actions as threatening and unprovoked. Though not an excuse for her behavior, it might sufficiently lessen her culpability to warrant the absence of charges.
That’s all I really meant by “unnecessarily”.
As for her apology, I must concede that it’s not the most contrite. Remember, though, that this is Cynthia McKinney we’re talking about, and any concession or on her part is unprecedented.
April 9th, 2006 at 11:35:58 pm
Heh.
Fair enough. Not sure I buy that the ultimately “unnecessary” nature of the action is enough to warrant any sort of mitigation, but at least I understand what you are saying now.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:40:33 pm
The Pragmatist @ 11:30 - a valid point, and one I should remember next time Mendacious Mouse (the Cynthia McKinney of this blog) is expressing herself …
(innocent smile)
April 10th, 2006 at 6:20:29 pm
Brendan wrote … “Anyone who berates, let alone assaults, security officials for doing their jobs out of a misplaced sense of pique and self-righteous outrage has a serious attitude problem.”
Wow Brendan, you dog her out while giving Cheney’s people a pass for outing Valerie Plame? hmmmm, closet republican. Why don’t you just “come out of the closet” and swear your allegiance to Bush.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:17:48 pm
Umm…wow…and i really mean that, cause WOW thats the biggest logical leap I have seen around here.
First off, anyone around here will tell you I am certainly no closet Republican, and I agree 100% with Brendan’s assesment of the situation. She was out of line completely and it has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with stupidity.
To imply that by not making a big deal out of some other issue that Brendan aproves of it though, thats a pretty big logical leap if you ask me.
I suppose I should let Brendan speak for himself, but man are you in for it, thats all I can say. Congrats on making yourself look like an idiot though, you did do it in a spectacular fashion…
April 10th, 2006 at 8:44:50 pm
wow @ 6:20 pm - it’ll take you a while to read all the words, but try this site - Plame reality in context
His father may well be more of a closet Provo, but I sorta doubt that Brendan is quite ready to ‘fess up to being any form of republican (except generic), so far …
April 10th, 2006 at 9:39:52 pm
The Pragmatist is above political affiliations.
April 11th, 2006 at 1:59:22 am
Alasdair wonders if The Pragmatist is closely related to Bob Dole ?
(innocent grin)
April 11th, 2006 at 8:02:57 am
Wow Brendan, you dog her out while giving Cheney’s people a pass for outing Valerie Plame?
One of my guestbloggers posted on the latest Plame developments, and there has been an ongoing comment-thread about it, so I didn’t feel there was anything that I needed to add.
hmmmm, closet republican. Why don’t you just “come out of the closet� and swear your allegiance to Bush.
Becasue 1) I’m not a Republican, and 2) I have no allegiance to Bush. Any more questions?