Accuracy Matters: The Cops Did Not Change Their Story To Say Poke.

The Mckinney issue has obviously been a heated one here. Many people have different opinions, assumptions and emotions about what happened and why. I think it is completely appropriate for us to explore the issue and healthy that we come to different conclusions, since we are not trained to walk in lockstep. What I think is extremely important, however, is that whatever exploration we make we do so to the best of our ability with accurate information. Truth Matters.

In that spirit, allow me to clarify the following quote from the article some DU'ers are claiming showed the cops changed their story to 'poke':

"The unidentified officer wants to press assault charges against McKinney, who allegedly poked him with her cellphone Wednesday morning as she tried to bypass a metal detector while walking into a House office building, said Capitol Police sources familiar with the incident."

It seems some want to attribute the middle part of that statement to the cops, but that is not accurate reading comprehension. Let's dissect further and put it in parenthesis:

"The unidentified officer wants to press assault charges against McKinney, (who allegedly poked him with her cellphone Wednesday morning as she tried to bypass a metal detector while walking into a House office building), said Capitol Police sources familiar with the incident."

The part in parenthesis is from the author's mouth, not the cops. It is an aside given for additional context by the writer, from his own knowledge. So let's dissect the statement one last time, to only the part that IS in fact attributed to the cops statement:

"The unidentified officer wants to press assault charges against McKinney, said Capitol Police sources familiar with the incident."

Now DU, please, this isn't for sake of flames. It is merely an attempt to help us get our facts straight and use them appropriately. Please read the quote in the context I've stated above. It truly is the accurate way to read it. All the cops said is that an unidentified officer wants to press charges. No spin, no changing of the story, nothing provocative at all.

Thank you for allowing me the chance to clarify, and God bless all of us at DU, even during these trying times of our camaraderie.

material.

Gramatically, the OP analysis is correct.

Of course, this still begs the question of whether the author was aware of this and using the commas appropriately.

It helps show how the statement is supposed to be read from a reading comprehension perspective. I put them in myself to make it easier to read.

The explanation is accurate though.

there should actually BE parentheses there. commas and parentheses are not identical grammatically.

com·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (km)
n.
Grammar. A punctuation mark ( , ) used to indicate a separation of ideas or of elements within the structure of a sentence.
A pause or separation; a caesura.

parentheses:

A qualifying or amplifying word, phrase, or sentence inserted within written matter in such a way as to be independent of the surrounding grammatical structure.
A comment departing from the theme of discourse; a digression.
An interruption of continuity; an interval: “This is one of the things I wasn't prepared forthe amount of unfilled time, the long parentheses of nothing” (Margaret Atwood).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

quote (which does not contain the parentheses), NOT your correction of it.

Woulda been fun if you did say you were drunk though LOL

which do nothing but restrict our freedom of movement.

When was the last time a Black lady ever was picked up or convicted of terrorism? I think a male police officer grabbing at a woman is sick.

It reminds me of the TSA who shake down grandma's and grandpa's at the airport, and does so in the name of national security.

Just because W has lost all reality doesn't mean we have.

i just would. i dont do well with anyone grabbing me. i would react, yank my arm away something.

but i agree with your whole post. and it is people that will defend this cop that are creating this hell of america for all of us to live. i am really resenting it myself.

is saying it and not the capital police. but i will even give you that, who cares. but...... she certainly didnt punch him, and didnt punch him with the cell phone. now that the cell phone is in the story it cant be she punched him. the only thing that will work now that it is with a cell phone and not a fist is that he was "poked". so really your post has clarified even more that she did NOT punch the man

and the wussy cop that he is, that he would have the audacity to press charges.... i want to see the video. but then we know that we wont see the video dont we, they already said that they wouldnt show it. would it just be too humiliating for the cop for all to see what a wuss he is. he isnt going to even press charges cause then the video would have to be seen.

so no she didnt "punch" with cell phone. that just makes no sense

i guess there is just more validity to the fact it was a poke, sense it all centers around the phone

asshole cop, that a poke, yes a poke with a cell phone warrants charges. we damn well know there is just arrogance here on the cops part. ntohing more,. just an asshole

In my opinion that aspect of the post isn't even up for debate, as it is FACT that the cops didn't say the poke part. My statements as to why, from a grammatical and comprehension perspective, are completely accurate.

Cynthia herself says she used her arm. So it seems like a forearm thrust of some type, but still not a poke, probably more related to a punch but with a forearm. Who cares though. It was an isolated incident in whicy I believe she made an impulsively bad judgement call. I think all parties should just move on with a mutual understanding of what to take as lessons learned.

But regardless of my opinion on it, we should still base them off the available facts. And believe me, the fact is that the cops DID NOT change their story to poke, so there is no reason to believe that's all it was.

judgement'? How did you determine that?

You said let's stick to facts. I agree, let's, because there has been a huge gap in the facts department so far.

1: Capital Hill police are hired to protect members of Congress.
2: In order to do their job properly, they must recognize those they are hired to protect.
3: Cynthia McKinney is one of those Congresspersons this cop was hired to protect.
4: He was unable to do his job because of incompetence. He did not take the trouble to learn the ID of those he was hired to protect.
5: He screwed up and rather than protect a person he was hired to protect, he harrassed her.
6: This incident would not have happened had he been competent.
7: Normally when someone screws up so badly, they are fired, especially if their job is as important as we are told security jobs are in this 'after 9/11 world'.
8: Cynthia is the victim in this case ~ the cop should be fired. The protection of government officials is a serious job and should be taken seriously.

Most incredible is the fact that the woman who WAS doing the job taxpayers are paying her to do, is being accused of 'using bad judgement', while the incompetent cop (whose ID we still do not know) is being defended by people who say they want to be fair.

Maybe it's because after five years of the most gross incompetence in our government, the bar has been so lowered that some of us no longer expect those we pay for services to deliver them. The lack of outrage over the deadly incompetence that led to the Katrina disaster, demonstrates how willing we are to let even incompetence of such major proportions go by without any accountability whatsoever, or even minimal consequences.

Not one person responsible for the Iraq War disaster has been held accountable either.

So far, from the FACTS that we do know, a man failed to do his job and someone else is being blamed. Why am I not surprised?

I think the cop very well may have been incompetent as well and maybe should be fired, for the reasons you state. I think they both could've handled each of their roles better. I look at it as lessons learned, move on.

I mean, was that actually stated anywhere, at all, that she wasn't allowed, or that she didn't work there?

Seriously, this is one of the most out of left field, no content to the OP, posts I've ever gotten. It's perplexing.

He is clearly unfitted to the task, if he can be struck with any effect in such a situation, and even more so if he whines so when struck inneffectively. He would be better employed in some manner that requires neither physical aptitude and alertness, nor courage and fortitude. The firing should be immediate, and conducted with some measure of public and humiliating ceremony pour encourager les autres.....

I agree completely with your idea, though for those who still want to read it has being the source saying she "poked" the guard, I would re-write the sentence as follows:

"The unidentified officer wants to press assault charges against McKinney, a six-term member of Congress, said Capitol Police sources familiar with the incident."

It's clear that the part in the middle is an appositive put in there by the author of the piece and not something to be attributed to the "Capitol Police sources" mentioned at the end of the sentence. In my re-write, it's clear that it wasn't the "sources" who said she's a six-term member of Congress; it's an outside fact/allegation added by the author of the sentence to simply provide some extra information to his readers.

In a different thread. See?

"Try and stay with me here now. The part you see in parenthesis, which is the part that says poking, was just an aside by the writer and was OUTSIDE of what was being quoted by the USCP. Here, I'll give an example. Say I'm writing a story about you. I write "file83 claims the uscp changed their story on Mckinney, (a congresswoman from Georgia), said a source from DU". See, I wouldn't be saying or implying that YOU or the DU source said she was a congresswoman from georgia. No, it would be me, choosing to add additional information for sake of context, from my own knowledge of the subject. The only part that would be attributed to you or the DU source would be the part OUTSIDE of the parenthesis."

But how pre-school is he? Waahhh. She poked me! He must be some big bad ass guard. Mommy! She touched me. Crybaby.