The MilitantNegro SoapBox™: Why Are EX – Felons Denied The Right To Vote?


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!blogid1

Should-Convicted-Felons-Have-the-Right-to-Vote

 

Felony disenfranchisement

 

Ever wonder what the conselfishservative, Reich Wing, Gods Own Party, fools would say about felony disenfranchisement, which is a fancy way of saying ex-felons who can’t vote, if the prisons of AmeriKKKa were full of skin head, white supremacist, KKK members, instead of People Of Color….when it came to restoring ex-felons voting rights? I say this because AmeriKKKan prisons are chock full of People Of Color and they vote Democratic, when they bother to vote at all…..or if they could vote at all.

 

The TeaTardedRepubliCANT Pseudo-Freudian, Psycho-Sexual, Pro-caucasian, Pro-Racist, Anti-LGBTQA1, Anti-Feminist, Reich Wing GOPretender Conselfishservative, NRA-Gun Loving, Nut Bag, bottom feeding, racist, ass backwards, white supremacists, Koch Brothers & A.L.E.C. controlled morons, greedy, wealthy, caucasian, special interest groups, asshole Party Members realize most of the felons in AmeriKKKan prisons don’t or won’t vote for the TeaTardedRepubliCANT party. Keeping the nearly 5.8 MILLION locked up felons off the public voting rolls helps The GOPukes. If these 5.8 MILLION felons were RepubliCANT voters, there would be no such thing as…..

Felony disenfranchisement

 

Felon-Voting-Rand-Paul

 

Felony disenfranchisement is excluding people otherwise eligible to vote from voting (known as disfranchisement) due to conviction of a criminal offence. Jurisdictions vary in whether they make such disfranchisement permanent, or restore suffrage after a person has served a sentence, or completed parole or probation. Affected individuals suffer “collateral consequences” including loss of access to jobs, housing, and other facilities.

 

Opponents have argued that this disfranchisement restricts and conflicts with principles of universal suffrage. This can affect civic and communal participation in general.

 

History

In Western countries, felony disfranchisement can be traced back to ancient Greek and Roman traditions: disfranchisement was commonly imposed as part of the punishment on those convicted of “infamous” crimes as part of their “civil death“, whereby these persons would lose all rights and claim to property. Most medieval common law jurisdictions developed punishments that provided for some form of exclusion from the community for felons, ranging from execution on sight to exclusion from community processes.

FLandVAfelons-460

 

Contemporary practice by country

 

United States

The United States is among the strictest nations in the world when it comes to denying the vote to those who have felony convictions on their record.

 

In the US, the constitution implicitly permits the states to adopt rules about disenfranchisement “for participation in rebellion, or other crime”, by the fourteenth amendment, section 2. It is up to the states to decide which crimes could be ground for disenfranchisement, and they are not formally bound to restrict this to felonies; however, in most cases, they do.

 

In 2008 over 5.3 million people in the United States were denied the right to vote because of felony disenfranchisement. Approximately thirteen percent of the United States’ population is African American, yet African Americans make up thirty-eight percent of the American prison population. Slightly more than fifteen percent of the United States population is Hispanic, while twenty percent of the prison population is Hispanic. People who are felons are disproportionately people of color. In the United States, felony disenfranchisement laws disproportionately affect communities of color as “they are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and subsequently denied the right to vote”. Research has shown that as much as 10 percent of the population in some minority communities in the USA is unable to vote, as a result of felon disenfranchisement.

 

In the national elections 2012, all the various state felony disenfranchisement laws added together blocked an estimated record number of 5.85 million Americans from voting, up from 1.2 million in 1976. This comprised 2.5% of the potential voters in general; and included 8% of the potential African American voters. The state with the highest amount of disenfranchised people were Florida, with 1.5 million disenfranchised, including more than a fifth of potential African American voters.

 

Felony disenfranchisement was a topic of debate during the 2012 Republican presidential primary. Rick Santorum argued for the restoration of voting rights for ex-offenders. Santorum’s position was attacked and distorted by Mitt Romney, who alleged that Santorum supported voting rights for offenders while incarcerated rather than Santorum’s stated position of restoring voting rights only after the completion of sentence, probation and parole. President Barack Obama supports voting rights for ex-offenders.

 

In the years 1997 to 2008, there was a trend to lift the disenfranchisement restrictions, or simplify the procedures for applying for the restoration of civil rights for people who had fulfilled their punishments for felonies; and as a consequence, in 2008, more than a half million people had the right to vote, but would have been disenfranchised under the older rules.[10] As of 2010, only Kentucky and Virginia continued to impose a lifelong denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record, absent some extraordinary intervention by the Governor or state legislature. However, in Kentucky, a felon’s rights can be restored after the completion of a restoration process to regain civil rights. Since then, more severe disenfranchise rules have came into effect in several states.

 

new-prisoner-voting-rights_medium-62040

 

In 2007 Florida moved to restore voting rights to convicted felons. In March 2011, however, Republican Governor Rick Scott reversed the 2007 reforms, making Florida the state with the most punitive law in terms of disenfranchising citizens with past felony convictions. In July 2005, Democratic Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack issued an executive order restoring the right to vote for all persons who have completed supervision. On October 31, 2005, Iowa’s Supreme Court upheld mass re-enfranchisement of convicted felons. However, on his inauguration day, January 14, 2011, Republican Iowa Governor Terry Branstad reversed Vilsack’s executive order. Nine other states disenfranchise felons for various lengths of time following their conviction. Except for Maine and Vermont, every state prohibits felons from voting while in prison.

 

Constitutionality

Unlike most laws that burden the right of citizens to vote based on some form of social status, felony disenfranchisement laws have been held to be constitutional. InRichardson v. Ramirez (1974), the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of felon disenfranchisement statutes, finding that the practice did not deny equal protection to disenfranchised voters. The Court looked to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which proclaims that States which deny the vote to male citizens, except on the basis of “participation of rebellion, or other crime”, will suffer a reduction in representation. Based on this language, the Court found that this amounted to an “affirmative sanction” of the practice of felon disenfranchisement, and the 14th Amendment could not prohibit in one section that which is expressly authorized in another.

 

But, critics of the practice argue that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment allows, but does not represent an endorsement of, felony disenfranchisement statutes as constitutional in light of the equal protection clause and is limited only to the issue of reduced representation. The Court ruled in Hunter v. Underwood 471 U.S. 222, 232 (1985) that a state’s crime disenfranchisement provision will violate Equal Protection if it can be demonstrated that the provision, as enacted, had “both [an] impermissible racial motivation and racially discriminatory impact.” (The law in question also disenfranchised people convicted of vagrancy, adultery, and any misdemeanor “involving moral turpitude”; the test case were two people being disenfranchised for presenting invalid checks, which the state authorities had found to be morally turpit behavior.) A felony disenfranchisement law, which on its face is indiscriminate in nature, cannot be invalidated by the Supreme Court unless its enforcement is proven to racially discriminate and to have been enacted with racially discriminatory animus.

 

southern_states_2418981

 

Classifications

Restoration of voting rights for people who are ex-offenders varies across the United States. Primary classification of voting rights include:

Unrestricted

Maine and Vermont are the only states with unrestricted voting rights for people who are felons. Both states allow the person to vote during incarceration, via absentee ballot and after terms of conviction end.

 

Ends after release

In thirteen states and the District of Columbia, disenfranchisement ends after incarceration is complete.

Ends after parole

In four states, disenfranchisement ends after incarceration and parole (if any) is complete.

Ends after probation

Twenty states require not only that incarceration/parole if any are complete but also that
any probation sentence (which is often an alternative to incarceration) is complete.

 

voting-guide-to-election-day

 

Circumstantial

Eight states have laws that vary with the detail of the crime. These laws restore voting rights to some offenders on the completion of incarceration, parole, and probation. Other offenders must make an individual petition that could be denied.

 

  • Alabama – A person convicted of a felony loses the ability to vote if the felony involves moral turpitude. The state Attorney General and courts have decided this for individual crimes. If a convicted person loses the ability to vote, he can petition to have it restored by a pardon or by a certificate of eligibility. A certificate of eligibility cannot be issued to a person convicted of a number of crimes having to do with sexual assault or abuse, including sodomy.

 

  • Arizona. Rights are restored to first-time felony offenders. Others must petition.

 

  • Delaware – Depending on the crime, a convicted felon either regains the right to vote after completion of their sentence or cannot regain the right to vote except through a pardon.

 

  • Mississippi – A convicted person loses suffrage for numerous crimes identified in the state constitution, Section 241 (see note). The list is given below. Suffrage can be restored to an individual by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature. The crimes that disqualify a person from voting are given in Section 241 of the state constitution as:

 

  • Nevada- First time and non-violent offenders all others may, “petition a court of competent jurisdiction for an order granting the restoration of his or her civil rights”

 

  • Tennessee – A person who is convicted of certain felonies may not regain voting rights except through pardon. These include: murder, rape, treason, and voting fraud. For a person convicted of a lesser felony, disenfranchisement ends after terms of incarceration, completion of parole, and completion of probation. In addition, the person must pay “Any court order restitution paid; current in the payment of any child support obligations; and/or Any court ordered court costs paid”. The ex-offender must either obtain a court order restoring their right to vote or complete the certificate of restoration of voting rights.

 

  • Virginia– As of May 29, 2013, it is a policy of the governor that a person convicted of a non-violent felony regains voting rights after the end of incarceration, parole, and probation. Offenders with “violent/more serious” felonies must appeal to the governor five years after the end of completing the sentence. Before appealing, they must satisfy several conditions:
    • “Free from any sentence served or supervised probation and parole for a minimum of two years for a non-violent offense or five years for a violent felony or drug distribution, drug manufacturing offense, any crimes against a minor, or an election law offense.”
    • “Has paid all court costs, fines, penalties and restitution and have no felony or misdemeanor charges pending; not have had a DWI in the five years immediately preceding the application.”
    • Not have any misdemeanor convictions and/or pending criminal charges 2 years preceding the application for non-violent felonies or five years for a violent felony or drug distribution, drug manufacturing offense, any crimes against a minor, or an election law offense.

 

  • Wyoming – A person convicted of a felony can, after serving the full sentence including any probation and parole, apply to the state governor to have suffrage restored. Since July 1, 2003, first-time, non-violent offenders have to wait five years before applying to the state parole board for restoration of suffrage. The parole board has the discretion to decide whether to reinstate rights on an individual basis.

felons-01_1

Individual petitions require

Three states require individual petition for all offenses;

  • Florida – Voting rights are restored by the Florida Board of Executive Clemency. Less serious crimes do not require a hearing with the clemency board. In those cases, disenfranchisement ends after it has been five years after completion of terms of incarceration, completion of parole and completion of probation. An application must be submitted to the court. For those with serious crimes, after seven years, the Florida Executive Clemency Board will decide whether or not to restore voting rights after receiving an application from the ex-offender.[67][68]
  • Kentucky – Only the governor can reinstate Civil Rights. The ex-offender must complete “Application for Restoration of Civil Rights”. Then it is at the governor’s discretion to restore voting rights.

Felony conviction thresholds affected by inflation

Various property crimes can have absolute dollar amount thresholds. For example, in Massachusetts under penalties specified in MGL Chap. 266: Sec. 127,a prosecution for malicious destruction of property can result in a felony conviction if the dollar amount of damage exceeds $250.

 

no-vote-convict

 

 

Holder Urges 11 States To Restore Voting Rights Of Former Felons

 

Published on Feb 18, 2014

Holder Urges 11 States To Restore Voting Rights Of Former Felons

 

Attorney General Eric Holder called on a group of states Tuesday to restore voting rights to ex-felons, part of a push to fix what he sees as flaws in the criminal justice system that have a disparate impact on racial minorities.

 

“It is time to fundamentally rethink laws that permanently disenfranchise people who are no longer under federal or state supervision,” Holder said, targeting 11 states that he said continue to restrict voting rights for former inmates, even after they’ve finished their prison terms.

 

“Across this country today, an estimated 5.8 million Americans — 5.8 million of our fellow citizens — are prohibited from voting because of current or previous felony convictions,” Holder told a symposium on criminal justice at Georgetown University.

 

 

 

Holder pushes for restoring voting rights for individuals with prior felony convictions

 

Published on Feb 18, 2014

February 15, 2014: Co-Director of Advancement Project, Judith Browne Dianis talks to T.J. Holmes about restoring voting rights for individuals with prior felony convictions who have completed their sentences.

 

 

 

From POLITICO:

Holder: Restore felons’ voting rights

 

By JOSH GERSTEIN

 

People convicted of felonies should not forever lose their right to vote, according to Attorney General Eric Holder.

 

In remarks prepared for delivery at a criminal justice conference Tuesday, Holder takes aim at state laws which strip voting rights from those convicted of serious crimes.

 

“It is time to fundamentally rethink laws that permanently disenfranchise people who are no longer under federal or state supervision,” Holder is to tell the Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights Criminal Justice Forum at Georgetown law school. “These restrictions are not only unnecessary and unjust, they are also counterproductive.  By perpetuating the stigma and isolation imposed on formerly incarcerated individuals, these laws increase the likelihood they will commit future crimes.”

 

Holder also plans to note that felon-disenfranchisement laws ban almost one in 13 African Americans from voting and, in states like Florida, Kentucky and Virginia, as many as one in five black adults have been stripped of voting rights. The attorney general argues that these measures are relics of a bygone era.

 

“However well-intentioned current advocates of felony disenfranchisement may be – the reality is that these measures are, at best, profoundly outdated,” Holder is to say. “At worst, these laws, with their disparate impact on minority communities, echo policies enacted during a deeply troubled period in America’s past – a time of post-Civil War discrimination.  And they have their roots in centuries-old conceptions of justice that were too often based on exclusion, animus, and fear.”

 

Holder has been stepping up his public advocacy on various issues in recent months, including reform to the criminal justice system. He’s pressing to rein in the use of mandatory minimum sentences, particularly for drug crime, and is encouraging some federal inmates to apply for presidential commutations. Such actions would surely have caused a stir during the tough-on-crime 1990s, Holder’s recent moves have encountered little public or political resistance. In fact, some Republicans are supporting shorter sentences for some offenders—in part due to huge prison costs federal and state governments are incurring.

 

Holder’s speech Tuesday is also expected to include an unusual shout-out for a former Republican official now getting up up-close-and-personal experience with the criminal justice system thanks to prosecutors working for Holder: former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.

 

“Just last year, former Governor McDonnell adopted a policy that began to automatically restore the voting rights of former prisoners with non-violent felony convictions,” the attorney general’s prepared remarks say. “I applaud those who have already shown leadership in raising awareness and helping to address this issue.”

 

McDonnell and his wife Maureen were indicted in federal court in Richmond last month on fraud and corruption charges stemming from their relationship with a wealthy Virginia businessman. The McDonnells pled not guilty to their charges and are free pending trial.

 

Thank you POLITICO & JOSH GERSTEIN.

 

restorertv

 

Restoring Voting Rights

 

Nearly 6 million American citizens are unable vote because of a past criminal conviction. As many as 4.4 million of these citizens live, work, and raise families in our communities. But because of a conviction in their past they are still denied this fundamental democratic right. These laws, deeply rooted in our troubled racial history, have a disproportionate impact on minorities. Across the country, 13 percent of African-American men have lost their right to vote, which is seven times the national average.

 

For a map of current state felon disenfranchisement policies, click here.

 

Through litigation, legislative and administrative advocacy, and public education, the Brennan Center works nationwide to restore voting rights to people with past criminal convictions. See our state-by-state guide on felony disenfranchisement laws and our work in Congress on the Democracy Restoration Act.

 

felons_vote

 

Recent Research From:

 

 

In advance of this crucial midterm election, this report details new voting restrictions put in place over the past few years, laws in place for the first time in 2014, and major lawsuits that could affect this year’s elections. See all our 2014 voting resources.

 

 

Voices across the political spectrum are calling to repeal laws that stop Americans with a criminal conviction in their past from voting. States should take this opportunity to implement reform.

 

 

 

The Democracy Restoration Act is a crucial step forward in ensuring that we stay true to our promise to make this a nation that provides equality for all.

 

 

Recent Litigation

 

The Ninth Circuit held that Washington’s criminal disenfranchisement law violates the Voting Rights Act. The decision is the first in the country to find that, due to racial discrimination in the state’s criminal justice system, the felony disenfranchisement law results in the denial of the right to vote on account of race.

 

 

Simmons vs. Galvin was a challenge to the Massachusetts law which disenfranchises people with felony convictions from voting while they are incarcerated.In a 2-1 decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and held that no claims can be brought against Massachusetts law under the Voting Rights Act.

 

Thank you Brennan Center For Justice.

 

Voting Rights Returning for Felons?

 

Published on Feb 20, 2014

Sen. Rand Paul and Attorney General Eric Holder are interested in restoring voting rights for felons and former prison inmates. The disenfranchisement of convicted felons, who number 5.85 million Americans, has been criticized as racist and unfairly targeting minorities, and we discuss how the prospective reform has created such strange bedfellows as Holder and Paul in this Buzzsaw news clip with Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha Wallace.

 

 

 

Is It Time To Give Felons Back Their Voting Rights?

 

Published on Feb 23, 2014

“Sen. Rand Paul brought his national crusade against the war on drugs back to his home state, giving testimony before the Kentucky state senate in favor of an amendment to restore voting rights to felons after they get out of prison.”

 

 

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Nitorioussoapbox

 

Why would an American who has served felony time for any crime, unless it’s directly related to voting, voter fraud, be denied the right to vote upon completing ALL court appointed duties related to his/her case? In other words if and when you walk out the gates of any prison and complete all parole duties, your Constitutional right to vote should and MUST be fully restored.

 

Unless you’re a RepubliCANT, or a TeaTardedRepubliCANT Pseudo-Freudian, Psycho-Sexual, Pro-caucasian, Pro-Racist, Anti-LGBTQA1, Anti-Feminist, Reich Wing GOPretender Conselfishservative, NRA-Gun Loving, Nut Bag, bottom feeding, racist, ass backwards, white supremacists, Koch Brothers & A.L.E.C. controlled morons, greedy, wealthy, caucasian, special interest groups, asshole Party Member…..and you realize that the majority of the 5.8 MILLION released ex-felons hate your party, and plan to vote for the other guy….THEN Felony Disenfranchisement makes perfect sense.

 

2014_sept_oct_images7

a026ez4ciaacbsh

blog_felon_disenfranchisement

e-voting

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!000000000000000000obama-forward3

Sometimes: “Just An Image Says It All™”


itisme

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!image1000words

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

twoimages

29a3194

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!cobra

The Twitter Storm™


itisme

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!twitterstorm

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!twitter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The ObamaCrat Is Dead. Long Live The MilitantNegro™


itisme

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!000000000000000000obama-forward3

 

In case you didn’t notice, this blog has gone through a small renovation process the past 4 weeks. I had wrestled in the past with what I would rename my blog in 2016 when The President Of The United States Of America, Barack Hussein Obama, left office. Barack helped me with that decision when an UNARMED Michael Brown was slain in the street of Ferguson, Missouri. The President, unwittingly, made the decision for me, just a bit early….two years early.

 

I used to be an ObamaCrat and follow Barack blindly, but Ferguson Missouri and the murder of Michael Brown, changed my views of Barack Hussein Obama. The President’s total lack of attention, he didn’t pay, to a rash of incidents involving the systematic genocide of Black Americans right here at home by racist AmeriKKKan law enforcement, made me realize Barack didn’t deserve my blind commitment. AmeriKKKa can’t fix the world when freedoms and liberties are denied daily to America’s citizens.

 

Bowing to political pressure from Democratic politicians who are concerned about having a Democratic President speak out about a racial murder, weeks before the all important Mid Term elections, is NOT why I voted for Barack Hussein Obama, twice. Ignoring the hundreds of murders of Black Americans, mostly Black American males, whom were unarmed and in a position of surrender and submission, is unacceptable to me as a Black male. It’s disgusting when a caucasian President ignores that issue. It’s the worst feeling in the soul and heart when a President who is a person of color ignores it, who happened to campaign on “Hope & Change”, and allows that Black genocide to continue.

 

Many defend Barack’s lack of involvement and cite his assigning AG Holder and the DOJ to investigate Ferguson. I didn’t vote twice for AG Eric Holder. I voted for MY POTUSA to represent me and to be the “Comforter-In-Chief” to all people in America, not just Sandy Hook victims, Hurricane Sandy victims, Oso, Washington mud slide victims or Aurora shooting victims. The conflict, chaos and racism displayed against the citizens of Ferguson, Missouri by the state of Missouri and county of St. Louis, was despicable, evil, nasty and down right unAmerican. The handling of the American press in Ferguson was and is disgusting and a blatant violation of freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

 

Our 44th POTUSA was silent on both issues. And still is silent.

 

obama4_6673

 

President Obama Delivers a Statement on Airstrikes in Syria

 

Published on Sep 23, 2014

Speaking from the South Lawn at the White House, President Obama delivered an update on the U.S. military airstrikes on ISIL targets in Syria. September 23, 2014.

 

 

You can not ask Americans to march into foreign lands and fight for those humans rights & liberties, when right here at home in AmeriKKKa, people have their rights challenged daily. The LGBTQA1 community fights daily to live equally. People Of Color fight daily for freedom & liberty. Women have been fighting for centuries to think for themselves, work for a fair and equal paycheck, get maternity leave and the right to control their bodies and their healthcare. 

 

The right to vote is being removed for Americans. Benefits for Veterans and the poor are vanishing. Marrying whom you love regardless of gender is fought on every front. Guns kill 30,000 plus in AmeriKKKa annually. Oil and other fossil fuels are choking our planet. Dreamers are at risk. Sexual assault in our military and on our college campuses is rampant. YET our elected politicians are concerned with tax breaks for the wealthy. Killing humans in foreign nations. Giving billions in financial aid to Israel. Worrying about Sharia Islamic Law.

 

Dear Mom and Dad- get to work saving my life!

 

Published on Jul 20, 2014

If you have children you MUST watch and share this video! It’s time to stop the madness and protect our children from America’s epidemic of gun violence! To use this video in a commercial player or in broadcasts, please email licensing@storyful.com

 

 

 

AmeriKKKa can’t police the world while ignoring issues at home that keep Americans in poverty, issues that keep Americans under nourished, but mostly issues that keep America in 3rd world status.

 

If Barack Hussein Obama has concerns for freedoms and liberties being denied on this planet……start right here in The United States Of AmeriKKKa.

 

22f1859164124ddac16ad217d74cfe09185b865b862e4a6637269af7b634b25d

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!fight

peace5

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11bottom

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!000000000000000000obama-forward3

Capitol Hill Suspect Identified As Miriam Carey, Dental Hygienist From Connecticut.


 

By Jueseppi B.

This image is believed to be of Miriam Carey, the dental hygenist identified in news reports as the suspect in a shooting incident that left Capitol Hill on lockdown for a brief period Thursday afternoon.

This image is believed to be of Miriam Carey, the dental hygenist identified in news reports as the suspect in a shooting incident that left Capitol Hill on lockdown for a brief period Thursday afternoon.

 

 

From The International Business Times:

 

Miriam Carey, Suspect Reportedly Killed In The Capitol Hill Shooting

 

By 

 

Here’s what we know about Miriam Carey, the woman identified in news reports as the suspect in a shooting incident that left Capitol Hill on lockdown for a brief period Thursday afternoon, and has now reportedly been shot dead by police.

 

Carey, a 34-year-old dental hygienist has been identified by ­­­the New York Post and the New Haven Register newspaper as the suspect in a shooting incident that took place in the nation’s capital. Here’s what we know about Ms. Carey so far.

 

A law enforcement source told the Register that Carey is the suspect who was reportedly shot dead by Capitol Police following a high-speed car chase that began when she allegedly rammed her black Lexus into a barricade near the White House.

 

The altercation led to the U.S. Capitol being locked down for a brief period of time after shots rang out near Garfield Circle, in the vicinity of the Hart Senate Office Building.

 

Thank you The International Business Times.

 

Connecticut Woman, Miriam Carey Shot Dead Outside U.S. Capitol After Car Chased

 

Published on Oct 3, 2013

Connecticut Woman Miriam Carey Shot Dead Outside U.S. Capitol After Failed White House Break-in.

 

 

After attempting to ram down the gates to the White House, Miriam Carey, 34, a dental hygienist who once lived in Brooklyn led Secret Service agents and police on a pursuit toward the U.S. Capitol where she was gunned down. The chaos temporarily put the U.S. Capitol in lockdown.

 

A crazed Connecticut woman who tried to ram her way into the White House was shot and killed Thursday after she led police on a high-speed chase through the heart of Washington that left two police officers injured.

 

Miriam Carey, a 34-year-old dental hygienist from Stamford who once lived in Brooklyn, had a year-old child in the car with her who was not hurt, officials said.

 

“This appears to be an isolated incident,” said Capitol Police Chief Kim Dine. “There is no nexus to terrorism.”

ABC News reported the woman had a history of “mental health issues.”

 

The drama began around 2:20 p.m., officials said, after Carey — driving a leased black Infiniti — sped into the driveway leading into the White House and tried to breach security at 15th and E Streets, officials said.

 

Thwarted by the pylons and confronted by cops with their guns drawn, Carey spun the car around and hit the gas — knocking a Secret Service agent over the hood of the car as she sped away.

 

With Capitol police and Secret Service agents in hot pursuit, Carey raced 12 blocks toward the Capitol, chased at speeds of up to 80 mph at some points.

At Constitution Ave. and Second St., she collided a Capitol Police car and then barreled into some barricades outside the Hart Senate Office building, Dine said.

 

U.S. Capitol On Lockdown After Reports Of Gun Shots

 

From The New York Post:

Capitol attacker was Conn.-based dental hygienist

 

By Larry Celona

 

A dental hygienist from Connecticut was the female driver who tried to ram her car into a White House barricade and was shot dead near the US Capitol after a high-speed chase through Washington streets Thursday afternoon, law enforcement sources told The Post.

 

Sources said Miriam Carey, who formerly lived in Brooklyn, was licensed to practice in New York and Connecticut and had a permit to work as a hygienist in Connecticut prisons.

 

At least a dozen gunshots were fired when she tried to flee cops, who  had trapped her two blocks from the Capitol. She was believed to have been hit several times.

 

A child believed to be a girl about 2 or 3 years old was found unhurt in her black Infiniti sedan, which had Connecticut license plates.

 

Authorities had no immediate explanation of the woman’s motive. But Capitol Police chief Kim Dine told reporters there was no reason to believe it was an act of terrorism “or anything other than an isolated incident.”

 

ABC News said the 34-year-old woman had a history of mental health issues. A task force of FBI and Secret Service agents was executing a search warrant at her Connecticut home, CNN said.

 

The incident began when the woman got into an argument with officers a security barricade outside the White House and crashed her Lexus into the barricade about 2 p.m. witnesses said.

 

Then she drove up Pennsylvania Avenue towards the Capitol, with at least 20 police and Secret Service cars in hot pursuit.

 

shooting_cnn

 

 

A witness told the Washington Post that the woman drove up the west side of the Capitol where a police cruiser blocked her path.

 

Police ordered her to get out of the sedan. But she threw the car in reverse, jumped a curb and hit another cruiser as she fled to the south side of the Capitol, the witness, Frank Schwing, said. Police opened fire as she fled.

 

Patty Bills, who works at Faith and Action, a Christian outreach group near the shooting scene, said she saw officers firing at the driver. It was not immediately clear whether the driver was armed.

 

“We heard three, four, five pops,” said Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa)., who was walking from the Capitol to an office building across the street. Police ordered Casey and nearby tourists to crouch behind a car for protection, then hustled everyone into the Capitol.

 

One police officer was injured, apparently when his car was struck. .Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer said his injuries were not life threatening.

 

The incident ended at 2nd Street and Constitution Avenue, two blocks from the Capitol and between the US Supreme Court building and the Hart Senate Office Building.

 

US Capitol Police ordered a lockdown of the complex, telling people in House office buildings to “shelter in place.” President Obama was briefed about the incident at the White House. The lockdown was lifted after 3 p.m.

 

There was no weapon in the woman’s car and she carried no ID, ABC News reported.

 

Thank you The New York Post.

 

U.S. Capitol On Lockdown After Reports Of Gun Shots US-POLITICS-SHOOTINGS-CAPITOL US-POLITICS-SHOOTINGS-CAPITOL US-POLITICS-SHOOTINGS-CAPITOL US-POLITICS-SHOOTING capitol Shots Fired near the U.S. Capotiol Building in Washington, D.C. lockdown1 Emergency personnel stand near a police car after gunshots were fired outside the U.S. Capitol building in Washington Shooting at US Capitol

 

blogger4peacelogo obamabottomheader

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 256,016 other followers

%d bloggers like this: