Rand Paul volunteer apologizes, banned from events

[lester1/2jr]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/10/apnewsbreak_paul_volunteer_apologizes_for_scuffle. php]APNewsBreak: Paul volunteer apologizes for scuffle, says video makes it appear worse

ROGER ALFORD
AP News

Oct 26, 2010 15:03 EDT

A Rand Paul supporter is apologizing after he was seen on video stepping on a liberal activist's head.

Tim Profitt, a volunteer with the Republican's U.S. Senate campaign, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the camera angle made the scuffle Monday night appear worse that it was. He criticized police for not stepping in and says other supporters warned authorities about the activist.

Lauren Valle, a 23-year-old with the group MoveOn.org, was wrestled to the ground by Paul supporters when she tried to confront the tea party favorite with a fake award. Valle said Tuesday she was sore and swollen.

The Paul campaign cut ties with Profitt, removing him from his role as Bourbon County campaign coordinator and banning him from campaign events.

[malkusm]

That's really too bad for Mr. Profitt, but hopefully he understands that the move was necessary for the campaign.

[AuH20]

Let the attacks commence!!!

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/05/23/2010-05-23_fringe_tea_partiers_toss_american_ideals_overbo ard.html?obref=obnetwork

[dannno]

Like a giraffe with a sore throat... goddammitanyway!!

[FrankRep]

RAW VIDEO: Rand Paul Supporter Stomps on MoveOn.org Activist Outside KY Debate (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/raw-video-rand-paul-supporter-stomps-on-moveon-org-activist-outside-ky-debate/)

The Blaze
October 26, 2010

[nobody's_hero]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/10/apnewsbreak_paul_volunteer_apologizes_for_scuffle. php]APNewsBreak: Paul volunteer apologizes for scuffle, says video makes it appear worse

He criticized police for not stepping in and says other supporters warned authorities about the activist.


"Those cops better come save this liberal activist from my boot!" lol

[lester1/2jr]

no more buddy guarding pls

[brandon]

That's really too bad for Mr. Profitt, but hopefully he understands that the move was necessary for the campaign.

I don't feel sorry for him. He seems to have the "don't tread on me" part down, but not the "don't tread on others"

[malkusm]

I don't feel sorry for him. He seems to have the "don't tread on me" part down, but not the "don't tread on others"

Touche :D

[BenIsForRon]

Fuck 'em. The other people were telling him to stop. Instead he wanted to get his jollies by stepping on liberal.

[ItsTime]

Thats right sheep STAND DOWN. Do not protect Rand. STAND DOWN. Do not attempt to stop the assassination of Rand Paul. STAND DOWN.

This is BULL SHIT.

[angelatc]

Thats right sheep STAND DOWN. Do not protect Rand. STAND DOWN. Do not attempt to stop the assassination of Rand Paul. STAND DOWN.

This is BULL SHIT.

Agreed. I like alpha males.

Taking her down was the right thing to do. Watch Jack Ruby approach Lee Harvey Oswald, watch Sirhan Sirhan approach Robert F Kennedy, and then explain to me why she shouldn't have been taken down.

Holding her there until the cops arrived would have been the right thing to do, but stomping her shoulder into the ground was not.

[lester1/2jr]

Rand can protect himself. He doesn't need bodyguards. If he needs them he'll HIRE them.

[pcosmar]

He did not at any time step on her head. Nor did he stomp on her at all.
He stepped on her shoulder, it what looked like an attempt to keep her down.

And the police should have done it, but once again,,,,, were absent.

never rely on police.

[FrankRep]

Agreed. I like alpha males.

Taking her down was the right thing to do. Watch Jack Ruby approach Lee Harvey Oswald, watch Sirhan Sirhan approach Robert F Kennedy, and then explain to me why she shouldn't have been taken down.

Holding her there until the cops arrived would have been the right thing to do, but stomping her shoulder into the ground was not.

After the person was down, someone stomped her. That's going overboard.

[ItsTime]

After the person was down, someone stomped her. That's going overboard.

Apparently you have never seen a stomp. It was a love push down on the ground.

[pcosmar]

Apparently you have never seen a stomp. It was a love push down on the ground.

I wear steel toed boots. That was not a stomp.
;)

[LibertyEagle]

Again, folks, when you post these negative articles in the open areas of the forum and do not break the links, all you are doing is helping to spread the propaganda. It helps make it appear at the top of Google's news.

[Ninja Homer]

Agreed. The terms "head stomp" and "curb stomp" are pretty specific as well as emotionally loaded, especially after "American History X". While the guy shouldn't have pushed her down with his foot, the media shouldn't be throwing those terms around. Here's a little hint that she wasn't "stomped"... she was smiling in the after-interview and said she had a little headache.

Most here have probably seen this movie, but for the uninitiated here's what a "head stomp" looks like (even though they never really show the act, I still find it hard to watch):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV9Oj-vhLkE
(won't let me embed the youtube for some reason, so copy/paste... ok this time it worked :confused:)

[lester1/2jr]

libertyeagle- and? It's a Ron Paul forum, not a nuts who support Rand Paul forum.

[LibertyEagle]

libertyeagle- and? It's a Ron Paul forum, not a nuts who support Rand Paul forum.

Let me get this straight, Lester. You think that anyone who supports Rand Paul is a "nut"?

Is that what you are saying?

[lester1/2jr]

No. this guy is a nut and he supports rand paul.

[AuH20]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/kentucky-stomping-victim-says-assailants-recognized-her-premeditated-attack.php?ref=fpa

[AuH20]

So this woman was a graduate of Columbia University with a degree major in Religion. Apparently, her hobbies include stalking Rand Paul at the behest of Republicorp. I don't know why they couldn't have simply subdued her. Kicking her shoulder was not smart. Liberals, despite their naivete in being pawns for much bigger fish, aren't our enemy and we shouldn't be wasting our time fighting them. Our true enemies are the entrenched bureaucrats, the two-faced politicians, the throngs of union thugs, the global think tank elites as well as the CFR backed corporations.

[klamath]

Moore was about 40 feet away from President Ford[8] when she fired a single shot at him with a different pistol, a .38 caliber revolver.[2] She was standing in the crowd across the street from the St. Francis Hotel. She was using a gun she bought in haste that same morning and did not know the sight was off by six inches. When she fired at Ford, her bullet missed his head by six inches. FBI case agent Richard Vitamanti measured the location the next day. After realizing she had missed, she raised her arm again, and Oliver Sipple, a Marine, dived towards her, knocking her arm the second time, and saving President Ford's lifeThat could have been president RP or Rand. She was acting agressive enought even posing as a Rand supporter that even they felt there was a danger to Rand.

[Ninja Homer]

One of the worst parts about this, that nobody's talking about, is that her sole purpose for running towards Rand Paul was to create a scene and generate a media response. Now she's being rewarded with media attention (even going on Keith Olbermann tonight) for doing something that's very stupid... you just don't run at a high profile politician pushing your way through a crowd of people. Now we'll probably see this tactic being used more, on both sides, and eventually somebody is going to get seriously hurt or shot.

I'm not necessarily saying there should be a specific law against this, but it's a lot like yelling "fire" in a theater.

[TNforPaul45]

One of the worst parts about this, that nobody's talking about, is that her sole purpose for running towards Rand Paul was to create a scene and generate a media response. Now she's being rewarded with media attention (even going on Keith Olbermann tonight) for doing something that's very stupid... you just don't run at a high profile politician pushing your way through a crowd of people. Now we'll probably see this tactic being used more, on both sides, and eventually somebody is going to get seriously hurt or shot.

I'm not necessarily saying there should be a specific law against this, but it's a lot like yelling "fire" in a theater.

http://i54.tinypic.com/2zexohw.jpg

[lester1/2jr]

next time this happens: accept the award and say "thank you and just for your information I opposed the iraq war and the Patriot Act".

turn it to your advantage

[Brett85]

next time this happens: accept the award and say "thank you and just for your information I opposed the iraq war and the Patriot Act".

turn it to your advantage

The left has proven that they don't even care about those issues. If you're not in favor of reckless spending and more debt they'll continue to denigrate you.

[legion]

Moore was about 40 feet away from President Ford[8] when she fired a single shot at him with a different pistol, a .38 caliber revolver.[2] She was standing in the crowd across the street from the St. Francis Hotel. She was using a gun she bought in haste that same morning and did not know the sight was off by six inches. When she fired at Ford, her bullet missed his head by six inches. FBI case agent Richard Vitamanti measured the location the next day. After realizing she had missed, she raised her arm again, and Oliver Sipple, a Marine, dived towards her, knocking her arm the second time, and saving President Ford's life


That could have been president RP or Rand. She was acting agressive enought even posing as a Rand supporter that even they felt there was a danger to Rand.



I'd say she had a .01% chance of hitting him, untrained, with all the stress of shooting at an American president, from that distance.

[lester1/2jr]

Now the guy has apologized, everyone is embarassed.

Can we move on, Move On?

[JohnEngland]

Now the guy has apologized, everyone is embarassed.

Can we move on, Move On?

Whilst I was pleased to see the results of the two latest polls, I think this clown has cost Rand a few percentage points. We need to work harder than ever in this last week.

[Daamien]

I hope she presses charges.

[libertarian4321]

I wear steel toed boots. That was not a stomp.
;)

You can quibble over whether it was a stomp or not. It's irrelevant.

The woman was down, tackled by another guy, and this big dude put a boot on her- completely unnecessary and a bit of a pussy move.

All he did was provide ammunition to the other side.

A stupid bitch move if there ever was one.

[libertarian4321]

Agreed. I like alpha males.

Taking her down was the right thing to do.

The "stomper" did NOT take her down.

Another guy did, and was on top of her when the "stomper" decided to put a boot on her. Completely unnecessary.

[pcosmar]

The "stomper" did NOT take her down.

Another guy did, and was on top of her when the "stomper" decided to put a boot on her. Completely unnecessary.

It was not by any stretch of imagination a stomp (except for propaganda purposes)
A foot on the shoulder to keep her from getting up is not stomping. It is restraining.

Old news anyway.

[Matt Collins]

It was not by any stretch of imagination a stomp (except for propaganda purposes)
A foot on the shoulder to keep her from getting up is not stomping. It is restraining.

Old news anyway.
It's amazing how many people here are buying into the liberal spin cool aid.

He wasn't trying to hurt her, merely keep her on the ground until the cops arrived. When he yelled "stay down until the cops get here" that was a clue to his intentions.

It looks bad on camera unfortunately, and with some editing, it looks even worse.

[james1906]

Someone should set her up on a date with Pancakes.

[Meatwasp]

It was not by any stretch of imagination a stomp (except for propaganda purposes)
A foot on the shoulder to keep her from getting up is not stomping. It is restraining.

Old news anyway.

Ditto kiddo

[klamath]

The "stomper" did NOT take her down.

Another guy did, and was on top of her when the "stomper" decided to put a boot on her. Completely unnecessary.
The woman was violently trying to jab the sign into Rands face though the car window. She was not trying to show it to to Rand she was trying to hit him. She did it twice. You start violence you reap violence. This was a classic example of blowback. You need to look at the video that was sent to redstate and you will get a better idea of why they took her down. http://www.redstate.com/rs_insider/2...ead-stomp-vid/

[libertarian4321]

It's amazing how many people here are buying into the liberal spin cool aid.

He wasn't trying to hurt her, merely keep her on the ground until the cops arrived. When he yelled "stay down until the cops get here" that was a clue to his intentions.

It looks bad on camera unfortunately, and with some editing, it looks even worse.

She was a small woman, with a guy already on top of her. That alone was more than enough to hold her down.

The 6'+, 200lb + guy hardly needed to put a boot on her to "hold her down."

It's not like they were trying to restrain Brock Lesnar, folks, this was a maybe 120 lb female.

The stomp/boot to the neck/however you want to phrase it was WAY OVER THE TOP- and it hurt the campaign of a good candidate who never even saw the scuffle.

Stop defending bad behavior, you aren't helping anyone.

[klamath]

She was a small woman, with a guy already on top of her. That alone was more than enough to hold her down.

The 6'+, 200lb + guy hardly needed to put a boot on her to "hold her down."

It's not like they were trying to restrain Brock Lesnar, folks, this was a maybe 120 lb female.

The stomp/boot to the neck/however you want to phrase it was WAY OVER THE TOP- and it hurt the campaign of a good candidate who never even saw the scuffle.
Except when he was getting hit in the face by her sign:rolleyes: http://www.redstate.com/rs_insider/2...ead-stomp-vid/

[Matt Collins]

She was a small woman, No she isn't. She is taller and bigger than I am.



with a guy already on top of her.There was no guy "on top of her" when he put his foot on her.



The 6'+, 200lb + guy hardly needed to put a boot on her to "hold her down."There was no "boot", it was a tennis shoe.


It's not like they were trying to restrain Brock Lesnar, folks, this was a maybe 120 lb female.

The stomp/boot to the neck/however you want to phrase it was WAY OVER THE TOP- and it hurt the campaign of a good candidate who never even saw the scuffle.She weighs a lot more than 120lbs. And there was no boot to the neck, it was a shoe to the shoulder, BIG DIFFERENCE. You need to stop drinking the liberal spin cool aid and remember who was the provocateur here. :rolleyes:


Stop defending bad behavior, you aren't helping anyone.I am not defending bad behavior. I abhor violence. He was trying to restrain her, not hurt her.

[Matt Collins]

it hurt the campaign of a good candidate who never even saw the scuffle.He didn't see that part of it, no. But he definitely saw her trying to attack him the first time.

[libertarian4321]

No she isn't. She is taller and bigger than I am.


There was no guy "on top of her" when he put his foot on her.

Well, maybe you're a midget, er, little person, I don't know. But this was NOT a big woman. 160 lbs absolute max. Any guy under the age of 70 should have been able to control her physically, or lose his "man card".


She weighs a lot more than 120lbs. And there was no boot to the neck, it was a shoe to the shoulder, BIG DIFFERENCE. You need to stop drinking the liberal spin cool aid and remember who was the provocateur here. :rolleyes:

Not drinking liberal anything. As a man, I'd NEVER put my foot on the neck of a woman who is much smaller than me and obviously not a threat.

I reviewed the video. One guy took her down. A hefty woman had her knee on the woman's back, THEN the last guy, who weighed at least 200 lbs, put his foot on her neck at a time when she was making NO EFFORT TO GET UP. Rand had already walked away.

There was no "threat" once she was prone. She made NO ATTEMPT to get up.

The guy who tackled her and the woman who put her knee on her were probably within bounds, but the last guy who put his foot on her was way the Hell over the top. Good men will never condone this sort of unnecessary violent action against women, though wife-beating red necks might see it as "necessary force."


I am not defending bad behavior. I abhor violence. He was trying to restrain her, not hurt her.

Then he could have simply put a hand on her shoulder to make sure she didn't get up (she wasn't even trying). C'mon, she went down in a heap and made no attempt to get up. Quibble all you like over here weight, whether 120, 150, or even 170, she wasn't going to get up, barrel through those (much larger) males and "pose a threat" to Rand.

Even without the other people around, the "stomper" outweighed the woman by at least 50 lbs and could have easily held her down had she tried to get up. Hell, I'm almost 50 years old, not a huge guy, and far past my physical prime, and I guarantee I could have controlled that woman with no problem at all without stepping on her.

I'll reiterate, they were holding down a small female with glasses-a dorky liberal chick, not Brock Lesnar. It did NOT require that much force.

[klamath]

Well, maybe you're a midget, er, little person, I don't know. But this was NOT a big woman. 160 lbs absolute max. Any guy under the age of 70 should have been able to control her physically, or lose his "man card".



Not drinking liberal anything. As a man, I'd NEVER put my foot on the neck of a woman who is much smaller than me and obviously not a threat.

I reviewed the video. One guy took her down. A hefty woman had her knee on the woman's back, THEN the last guy, who weighed at least 200 lbs, put his foot on her neck at a time when she was making NO EFFORT TO GET UP. Rand had already walked away.

There was no "threat" once she was prone. She made NO ATTEMPT to get up.

The guy who tackled her and the woman who put her knee on her were probably within bounds, but the last guy who put his foot on her was way the Hell over the top. Good men will never condone this sort of unnecessary violent action against women, though wife-beating red necks might see it as "necessary force."



Then he could have simply put a hand on her shoulder to make sure she didn't get up (she wasn't even trying). C'mon, she went down in a heap and made no attempt to get up. Quibble all you like over here weight, whether 120, 150, or even 170, she wasn't going to get up, barrel through those (much larger) males and "pose a threat" to Rand.

Even without the other people around, the "stomper" outweighed the woman by at least 50 lbs and could have easily held her down had she tried to get up. Hell, I'm almost 50 years old, not a huge guy, and far past my physical prime, and I guarantee I could have controlled that woman with no problem at all without stepping on her.

I'll reiterate, they were holding down a small female with glasses-a dorky liberal chick, not Brock Lesnar. It did NOT require that much force. It appears to me you don't care she was phyicallyattacking Rand. All you seem to care about is this poor woman that created the violent scene.

[pcosmar]

I'll reiterate, they were holding down a small female with glasses-a dorky liberal chick, not Brock Lesnar. It did NOT require that much force.

Much ado about nothing.

Personally I wouldn't care if they had snapped her worthless neck.

One less communist is One Less Communist.
:p

p.s. this has long been blown out of all proportion

[LibertyEagle]

Well, maybe you're a midget, er, little person, I don't know. But this was NOT a big woman. 160 lbs absolute max. Any guy under the age of 70 should have been able to control her physically, or lose his "man card".

Not drinking liberal anything. As a man, I'd NEVER put my foot on the neck of a woman who is much smaller than me and obviously not a threat.

I reviewed the video. One guy took her down. A hefty woman had her knee on the woman's back, THEN the last guy, who weighed at least 200 lbs, put his foot on her neck at a time when she was making NO EFFORT TO GET UP. Rand had already walked away.

There was no "threat" once she was prone. She made NO ATTEMPT to get up.

The guy who tackled her and the woman who put her knee on her were probably within bounds, but the last guy who put his foot on her was way the Hell over the top. Good men will never condone this sort of unnecessary violent action against women, though wife-beating red necks might see it as "necessary force."



Then he could have simply put a hand on her shoulder to make sure she didn't get up (she wasn't even trying). C'mon, she went down in a heap and made no attempt to get up. Quibble all you like over here weight, whether 120, 150, or even 170, she wasn't going to get up, barrel through those (much larger) males and "pose a threat" to Rand.

Even without the other people around, the "stomper" outweighed the woman by at least 50 lbs and could have easily held her down had she tried to get up. Hell, I'm almost 50 years old, not a huge guy, and far past my physical prime, and I guarantee I could have controlled that woman with no problem at all without stepping on her.

I'll reiterate, they were holding down a small female with glasses-a dorky liberal chick, not Brock Lesnar. It did NOT require that much force.

20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

:rolleyes:

Let's look at what we know.

A suspicious woman in disguise flat out ran through the crowd charging at Rand Paul's car as it drove up and JAMMED a sign repeatedly through Rand Paul's window.

A couple of supporters subdued her and laid her on the ground. Another guy put his tennis shoe on the shoulder of the woman and pushed down, telling her to stay down.

We also know that the police had been asked to come deal with this woman, but they as yet had not done so. So, they were effectively out of the picture.

Should the guy have done what he did? No. Is it understandable, given the adrenaline that must have been running at the time? Absolutely. Is it believable that he was concerned for Rand's safety? Abso-f'ing-lutely!!!

I cannot believe the hand-wringing going on about this. Other than to be very concerned that someone could actually charge up to Rand's car and jab something through the window. Now, THAT is concerning! This incident could have had a very different ending and I am thankful that it did not. There are a lot of very powerful people out there who do not want patriots like Rand Paul in office.

[libertarian4321]

It appears to me you don't care she was phyicallyattacking Rand. All you seem to care about is this poor woman that created the violent scene.

She never touched him. Never even got close to touching him, and there is no indication that she had any intention of touching him.

She was looking to make a scene, not assault Rand Paul. And even if you believe she was some tough guy intent on roughing up Rand, she was DOWN.

Once a person is subdued, there is no reason to use unnecessary force.

The same people who bitch about cops using unnecessary force are condoning it here.

Look, if the assailant was a large male with combat skills- Brock Lesnar, a green beret, something like that, the force might have been justified. But this was a small and obviously NOT tough female that any but the wimpiest male could have easily held down.

Have you ever wrestled? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get up from a prone position with one or more larger people on top of you and "attack" a third person? That's a tall order for a professional MALE fighter, and a bloody impossibility for a small, unfit, four-eyed female.

Once she was DOWN, she was no threat to "assault" Dr. Paul. Before she was down, maybe, but certainly not after.

The force was excessive, it did nothing to "protect" Rand, and it gave the opposition fuel to attack him.

Bottom line: Excessive force, punk ass move, and a detriment to the campaign.

Spin all you want, this was NOT a smart decision. Rand was smart to dissociate himself from this guy.

Unfortunately, the damage is already done.

[libertarian4321]

20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

:rolleyes:

Let's look at what we know.

A suspicious woman in disguise flat out ran through the crowd charging at Rand Paul's car as it drove up and JAMMED a sign repeatedly through Rand Paul's window.

A couple of supporters subdued her and laid her on the ground.

Up to this point, I have no problem with what they did.

Once she was down, though, it should have stopped. Not only was it wrong, it gives ammunition to the other side.

[MelissaWV]

...
I am not defending bad behavior. I abhor violence. He was trying to restrain her, not hurt her.

He was trying to restrain her, while she was already on the ground, for all of a second? She wasn't a threat for very long I guess!

If he were really trying to "keep her down," a foot firmly placed between the shoulder blades would be the way to go. The other people in the video telling him to stop and that it was unnecessary, I guess, were way off-base as well.

As for her not being restrained when it happened, watch the first 15 seconds of the video:

YouTube - Raw Video: Rand Paul Supporter Stomps Protester (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsrD9NxRC74)

See the guy who basically fell over with her? See him put his hands on her shoulders? See the other person in the foreground also coming in to help restrain her? See the person barely off-camera to the right who also appears to be helping corral her? Do you also see how the man's foot was, at first, just there... and then he put his weight on it?

I sometimes wonder if people watch the videos before they chitchat about them so much. :( She was a kook, a loon, a threat, and she was taken down. Bravo to the people that did that without resorting to literally stepping on someone while they were down.

[LibertyEagle]

She never touched him. Never even got close to touching him, and there is no indication that she had any intention of touching him.

Sorry, but that is BS.

YouTube - Rand Paul Assassination Attempt by Move On (Parody) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfNZNZYScLY&feature=player_embedded)


Of course the campaign had to dissociate themselves from the guy. I don't think anyone is arguing contrary. Nor do I see anyone agreeing that it was wise that he did what he did. Especially given the politically-correct environment that we live in and the way the media spins things. However, for you to go on and on and on about how terrible he was for doing it, is just weird. We weren't there. I can't imagine how scary it must have been to see this whole thing go down. I know I would have been very concerned for Dr. Paul's safety and shocked that someone could actually do what the woman did.

It's OVER. Just let it drop.

[Matt Collins]

Well, maybe you're a midget, er, little person, I don't know. Not hardly, 5'2".


But this was NOT a big woman. 160 lbs absolute max. Any guy under the age of 70 should have been able to control her physically, or lose his "man card".I'm willing to bet that controlling a 160lbs squirming person is harder than it looks, especially if one is untrained.



Not drinking liberal anything. As a man, I'd NEVER put my foot on the neck of a woman who is much smaller than me and obviously not a threat. And neither did anyone in the video. Are you a troll? :confused: :rolleyes:


I reviewed the video. One guy took her down. A hefty woman had her knee on the woman's back, THEN the last guy, who weighed at least 200 lbs, put his foot on her neck at a time when she was making NO EFFORT TO GET UP. Rand had already walked away.It was not her neck, it was her shoulder. Look closer and quit listening to the liberal media liars.


There was no "threat" once she was prone. She made NO ATTEMPT to get up.She had tried to attack Rand at least twice before. My guess is that they were thinking she might try it again. Just sayin'


Then he could have simply put a hand on her shoulder to make sure she didn't get up (she wasn't even trying). This is where he said he had back problems and didn't bend over.


Quibble all you like over here weight, whether 120, 150, or even 170, she wasn't going to get up, barrel through those (much larger) males and "pose a threat" to Rand.Really? She had just done it once before.


I'll reiterate, they were holding down a small femaleShe wasn't small :rolleyes:

[MelissaWV]

Of course the campaign had to dissociate themselves from the guy. I don't think anyone is arguing contrary. Nor do I see anyone agreeing that it was wise that he did what he did. Especially given the politically-correct environment that we live in and the way the media spins things. However, for you to go on and on and on about how terrible he was for doing it, is just weird. We weren't there. I can't imagine how scary it must have been to see this whole thing go down. I know I would have been very concerned for Dr. Paul's safety and shocked that someone could actually do what the woman did.

It's OVER. Just let it drop.

I expect the same paragraph to be posted the next time a thread about police brutality happens.

You weren't there. You don't know how afraid they were. They were concerned for safety. Just let it drop :)

I'm sure I won't have long to wait; brutality threads are quite common.

[Matt Collins]

there is no indication that she had any intention of touching him.No, because lunging for someone is no indication of wanting to touch them :rolleyes:


She was looking to make a scene, not assault Rand Paul. You have no way to prove that.



Once a person is subdued, there is no reason to use unnecessary force. I absolutely agree.


it did nothing to "protect" Rand, and it gave the opposition fuel to attack him.I don't nessecarily disagree with this. But I will say that it looks worse on TV than it was in person largely because of the angle of the camera and her clothing style.

[Matt Collins]

He was trying to restrain her, while she was already on the ground, for all of a second? She wasn't a threat for very long I guess!


If he were really trying to "keep her down," a foot firmly placed between the shoulder blades would be the way to go. The other people in the video telling him to stop and that it was unnecessary, I guess, were way off-base as well.My guess is that he probably realized she was down after he put his foot on her shoulder, and then decided it wasn't necessary at that point which is why he removed his foot as fast as he could all the while yelling "stay down until the cops get here". Obviously his intention was to subdue her, not to hurt her.

Remember it was a reaction, not the initial provocation.

[MelissaWV]

My guess is that he probably realized she was down after he put his foot on her shoulder, and then decided it wasn't necessary at that point which is why he removed his foot as fast as he could all the while yelling "stay down until the cops get here". Obviously his intention was to subdue her, not to hurt her.

Remember it was a reaction, not the initial provocation.

That's a lot of guessing to justify a bad act.

[libertarian4321]

However, for you to go on and on and on about how terrible he was for doing it, is just weird. We weren't there. I can't imagine how scary it must have been to see this whole thing go down.



You are a female, so maybe you don't get it. As I said before, I'm not young, I'm not all that big, and 25 years past my physical prime, and yet I guarantee I wouldn't have been "scared" by this. A small, four-eyed, doughy female laid out on the ground?

Give me a break, my 78-year old father could have kept her down without standing on her neck/head/shoulder."

If this had been a small guy, it would have been a bit excessive, but with a prone female, who was obviously NOT trying to get up, it was waaaay over the top.

And yeah, I get it, she wasn't injured. But the PERCEPTION was terrible. This clown did nothing to "protect" Rand, and did a LOT of damage to the campaign late in the game. All because he wasn't thinking.

I support Rand, and he's one of the few "Tea Party" candidates I (mostly) like (frankly, some of them are dip shits). But this was a stupid move that hurt the campaign.

Rather than defend stupid and unnecessary violence that hurts the campaign, we should condemn it and point out that the candidate does not endorse this sort of thuggery.

And yeah, I was taught it was a pussy move for guys to beat on women, even liberal women, maybe that's part of my problem with this. I won't apologize for that.

[Jordan]

If the "stomper" weren't a Rand Paul supporter, and were instead a cop, there wouldn't be 50 posts in this thread defending the action.

It's one thing to hold someone down with your foot. Its another to shove it into her back when she's already on the ground.

[LibertyEagle]

No one is saying what he did was right, Jordan. But, this pummeling that is going on DAYS after the event is just weird.

[MelissaWV]

No one is saying what he did was right, Jordan. But, this pummeling that is going on DAYS after the event is just weird.

It really is :) I'd want the guy who fell over holding this woman back from doing further harm, and even pinned her down. That guy's a damned hero.

It's a shame that people are ignoring him in favor of trying to justify something entirely different.

[RM918]

You are a female, so maybe you don't get it. As I said before, I'm not young, I'm not all that big, and 25 years past my physical prime, and yet I guarantee I wouldn't have been "scared" by this. A small, four-eyed, doughy female laid out on the ground?

Give me a break, my 78-year old father could have kept her down without standing on her neck/head/shoulder."

If this had been a small guy, it would have been a bit excessive, but with a prone female, who was obviously NOT trying to get up, it was waaaay over the top.

And yeah, I get it, she wasn't injured. But the PERCEPTION was terrible. This clown did nothing to "protect" Rand, and did a LOT of damage to the campaign late in the game. All because he wasn't thinking.

I support Rand, and he's one of the few "Tea Party" candidates I (mostly) like (frankly, some of them are dip shits). But this was a stupid move that hurt the campaign.

Rather than defend stupid and unnecessary violence that hurts the campaign, we should condemn it and point out that the candidate does not endorse this sort of thuggery.

And yeah, I was taught it was a pussy move for guys to beat on women, even liberal women, maybe that's part of my problem with this. I won't apologize for that.

They did! They condemned him and banned him from all events! Campaign had nothing to do with this, why are they being blamed?

[LibertyEagle]

I expect the same paragraph to be posted the next time a thread about police brutality happens.

You weren't there. You don't know how afraid they were. They were concerned for safety. Just let it drop :)

I'm sure I won't have long to wait; brutality threads are quite common.

You expect? :rolleyes:

I stand by what I said, Melissa. I'm not politically-correct. Sorry if you don't like it.

[LibertyEagle]

It really is :) I'd want the guy who fell over holding this woman back from doing further harm, and even pinned her down. That guy's a damned hero.

It's a shame that people are ignoring him in favor of trying to justify something entirely different.

I think you are misconstruing people's being sick and tired of this one guy being beat over the head DAYS after the incident, with agreeing with what he did.

Both suck. But, one I can understand, given what happened that night; the other is bs.

[klamath]

She never touched him. Never even got close to touching him, and there is no indication that she had any intention of touching him.
She was looking to make a scene, not assault Rand Paul. And even if you believe she was some tough guy intent on roughing up Rand, she was DOWN.

Once a person is subdued, there is no reason to use unnecessary force.

The same people who bitch about cops using unnecessary force are condoning it here.

Look, if the assailant was a large male with combat skills- Brock Lesnar, a green beret, something like that, the force might have been justified. But this was a small and obviously NOT tough female that any but the wimpiest male could have easily held down.

Have you ever wrestled? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get up from a prone position with one or more larger people on top of you and "attack" a third person? That's a tall order for a professional MALE fighter, and a bloody impossibility for a small, unfit, four-eyed female.

Once she was DOWN, she was no threat to "assault" Dr. Paul. Before she was down, maybe, but certainly not after.

The force was excessive, it did nothing to "protect" Rand, and it gave the opposition fuel to attack him.

Bottom line: Excessive force, punk ass move, and a detriment to the campaign.

Spin all you want, this was NOT a smart decision. Rand was smart to dissociate himself from this guy.

Unfortunately, the damage is already done. Bullshit. sit in the from seat of a car and have a 18 by 24 inch sign shoved through the window and let's see if you are hit. How do you know if Rand wasn't hit with that sign? She started the violence and she was NOT hurt. Hurt people don't get on cameras afterwards grinning from ear to ear lying and saying all she was trying to do was hand Rand a certificate. You liberals are going to get a back lash from over pushing this woman. SHE was the violent instigator and one guy out of a whole crowd got carried away. Give me a f****** break about this poor woman. You are the opposition.

[Brian4Liberty]

Another guy did, and was on top of her when the "stomper" decided to put a boot on her. .


She was a small woman, with a guy already on top of her.

Disclaimer: I don't want to defend this guy any more than I want to defend it when Police use excessive force on people. Almost always uncalled for...as was this guy's stomp. The guy was an ass, and his extra push seemed intentionally gratuitous.

That being said, if you watch the video, one guy basically "hugs" (restrains) her to the ground. Another woman (apparently another Rand supporter) comes over and chides/pushes the guy who was restraining the MoveOn woman, and he gets quickly up, off and away. The MoveOn women is no longer restrained by anyone. It is at that point that the overzealous guy gives her that foot shove to keep her on the ground. The woman who stopped the restraining guy is pretty much blocking the camera view, but she immediately steps over the woman on the ground, which means that restraining guy had backed up enough (minimally) for this woman to step over and have a place to stand between the retraining guy and the MoveOn woman. Basically, she (MoveOn woman) was free to jump back up at the time that the foot shove took place. Just sayin'. :o


C'mon, she went down in a heap and made no attempt to get up.

Yep. Reminiscent of an Italian soccer player faking a hit. ;) It would have been laughable had tough guy not given the extra foot stomp.

[revolutionary8]

I expect the same paragraph to be posted the next time a thread about police brutality happens.

You weren't there. You don't know how afraid they were. They were concerned for safety. Just let it drop :)

I'm sure I won't have long to wait; brutality threads are quite common.

The next time that a political candidate gets attacked by a person in a disguise charging the car that he/she is riding in, three times, gives police a fake ID, and turns out to be a paid political provacateur, a convicted felon, then we'll talk, that is what you are saying, correct?

After all, the woman was dressed in Rand Paul clothing, wearing Rand Paul stickers, how would the people there know that she was not a Rand Paul supporter? Perhaps they were just reacting towards her actions?

[libertarian4321]

You liberals are going to get a back lash

Give me a f****** break about this poor woman. You are the opposition.


I've been here for 3.5 years, posted 3,000 times, donated thousands of dollars to Ron Paul, RAND PAUL, and other libertarian candidates (and my wife had donated as much, though she isn't into the sign waving thing), gone to countless Ron Paul rallies, done sign waves, donated thousands of dollars of equipment to the San Antonio Ron Paul 2008 HQ, went to the Rally for the Republic (with several other SA Ron Paul supporters), and run for office myself as a libertarian candidate in 1998, 2000. 20002, 2004, 2006, and 2010 (I didn't run in 2008 because IO was a Republican delegate for RON PAUL) only so I could lie in wait and make a "liberal" plea on this post.

Fuck, you got me.

You are one clever son of a bitch.

You're freakin' brilliant for figuring out my strategy.

All these years I laid in in wait, hoping I wouldn't be caught by someone of your overwhelming freakin' intellect- I came here in 2007 just hoping to sabotage Rand Paul (years before he announced his candidacy).

Well, either that or maybe as a man I just think it's wrong to stomp on a female who is down and obviously no threat...

You make the call, genius.

[revolutionary8]

I think you are misconstruing people's being sick and tired of this one guy being beat over the head DAYS after the incident, with agreeing with what he did.

Both suck. But, one I can understand, given what happened that night; the other is bs.

That is EXACTLY what she is doing and she is doing it over in the Rand forum, and especially trying to lump us all together as some sort of "police brutality is great unless it is us" kind of thing... it's weird.

Melissa-
The man is going to court. He might be charged. Either way, he is being held accountable for his actions. Our supporters, put their hands in front of him and yelled at him to stop, Mr. Proffitt, immediately removed his shoe from her rear deltoid.

For some reason, people like to concentrate more on one man who might or might not have acted impulsively and OUT OF CHARACTER in the heat of the moment, rather than those who responded accordingly and told him to remove his foot. As sailingaway said, he may have had mitigating circumstances in his particular case. It will be up to the judge to decide.

Mr. Profitt wanted to avoid this, thus he informed the police. They refused to act even after the THIRD charge, and Mr. Profitt reacted. I don't believe for one second he ever wanted to be in the position he was in. It seems as though he was trying to AVOID it, but you don't want think about that. "Jack Booted Thugs" PLACE themselves in the postition that they are in, they do NOT try to avoid it, they run right for it, jump in with both steel toes.

Comparisons of jack booted thugery to Mr. Profitt, a volunteer for Rand Paul, acting out in the heat of the moment after he warned the police about the convicted felon in the disguise is deceitful and slanderous at worst and shallow at best.

[pcosmar]

Well, either that or maybe I just think it's wrong to stomp on a female who is down and obviously no threat...

.

Not so Obvious.
She is still alive, and undeterred, and no doubt plotting her next attack.

I would say that she and others of her ilk are a Real and Present Danger.

Violence may not be the answer, but it is often effective.
;)

[Promontorium]

I don't disagree with a person being detained if that's what is warranted, but putting your leg down "on the shoulder" was excessive, no matter how you slice it.

You would be disgusted if a cop did that, you are a hypocrite for supporting it for political reasons.

Even if she did have a gun, and we all damn well know she didn't even pose a threat but I'll give the liars the benefit of the doubt for actually being there, but even if she were armed, you'd still be in an outrage if this were a Rand supporter being crushed by a cop.

The human body can easily become severely damaged in that position, this is why police are trained to to hold people down with their knees.

This asshole endangered the health of a person he intentionally detained for no justifiable reason. The detention may have been justified, but not the excessive force. You cannot defend that, and attack police for the same behavior.

[revolutionary8]

Not so Obvious.
She is still alive, and undeterred, and no doubt plotting her next attack.

I would say that she and others of her ilk are a Real and Present Danger.

Violence may not be the answer, but it is often effective.
;)

Greenpeace is a government cult and Move-On uses the same tactics. These people really begin to "believe in" their actions and then they act out on it.

This lady has been compared to Squeaky Fromme and it is a good comparison.
People forget that Manson was a FULL BLOWN ECO-TERRORIST that wanted to "kill everybody" in order to save the planet.

Charles Manson: The Global Warming Prophet And Neo-Eugenicist
http://stevenjohnhibbs.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/charles-manson-the-global-warming-prophet-and-neo-eugenicist/

I really hope that supporters in the future don't cower if someone charges Ron or Rand Paul, or ANYONE for that matter- The foot to the back is unnecessary, but subduing the person is absolutely the best decision. Better safe than sorry. Let the campaigns ask you to "take one for the team", but FTLOG, don't "stand down" when your intstincts and your gut feelings tell you otherwise!

[libertarian4321]

Disclaimer: I don't want to defend this guy any more than I want to defend it when Police use excessive force on people. Almost always uncalled for...as was this guy's stomp. The guy was an ass, and his extra push seemed intentionally gratuitous.

That being said, if you watch the video, one guy basically "hugs" (restrains) her to the ground. Another woman (apparently another Rand supporter) comes over and chides/pushes the guy who was restraining the MoveOn woman, and he gets quickly up, off and away. The MoveOn women is no longer restrained by anyone. It is at that point that the overzealous guy gives her that foot shove to keep her on the ground. The woman who stopped the restraining guy is pretty much blocking the camera view, but she immediately steps over the woman on the ground, which means that restraining guy had backed up enough (minimally) for this woman to step over and have a place to stand between the retraining guy and the MoveOn woman. Basically, she (MoveOn woman) was free to jump back up at the time that the foot shove took place. Just sayin'. :o


I looked at the video again. It's not real clear when the "tackler" gets up, when the "knee" girl moves, and when the "stomper" stomps.

Still, the girl was DOWN, and making no attempt to get up. Maybe if she was a freakish athlete like a prime Terrell Owens, she could have laid in wait and popped up and attacked Rand before any of the people surrounding her reacted.

But based on the fact that she was a rather small, out of shape, four eyed female, I made a quick assessment that the did not have the quickness of Terrell Owens or the strength of Brock Lesnar. If the stomper had considered her a major "threat" he could have simply laid on her and held he down.

Let's cut the crap. The guy was overzealous (to say the least). I don't know if he's a bad guy or no, but he certainly displayed bad judgment here, and it HURT THE CAMPAIGN.

I do not, for an instant, think Rand Paul was responsible. It was an overzealous and/or dipshit volunteer who went too far.

The point is, this DUMB ASS went too far, and it hurt the campaign. In the future, if you are a volunteer, don't "help" the campaign by being a bully.

[revolutionary8]

I do not, for an instant, think Rand Paul was responsible. It was an overzealous and/or dipshit volunteer who went too far.

The point is, this DUMB ASS went too far, and it hurt the campaign. In the future, if you are a volunteer, don't "help" the campaign by being a bully.

I don't think anyone would argue with you about that here, but the frustrating part is that it is getting lumped in to one whole "scenario" where we are being coerced in to having to choose between "innocent victim" and a "jack booted thug" or "Puritan" vs. "Hypocrit".
It doesn't work that way. Regardless we will see what comes out in court. Hopefully the prior attempts to warn the police and Valle as a convicted felon providing false documents to police. Perhaps the police will agree to charge Valle. They certainly should. Refusing to provide id is one thing, providing fake id to authorities is another all together.

libertarian,
you forgot to mention the part about Valle SMILING as he stepped on her shoulder. It is apparent that she was in no pain. This point is lost in the forums, but I bet it will be discussed in court. I am sure that harm to the individual will come in to question...

[libertarian4321]

I really hope that supporters in the future don't cower if someone charges Ron or Rand Paul, or ANYONE for that matter- The foot to the back is unnecessary, but subduing the person is absolutely the best decision. Better safe than sorry. Let the campaigns ask you to "take one for the team", but FTLOG, don't "stand down" when your intstincts and your gut feelings tell you otherwise!

I'm old, I'm out of shape.

But I assure you, if it came down to stopping a threat to Ron Paul, my old Army/martial arts/Rugby training would kick in and I'd lay a righteous hit on the guy charging toward the candidate (Ben Gay would heal my aging muscles).

However, if the 'attacker" was DOWN, I would not lay the wood. I might sit on him, but would not lay a hit on him or stomp him.

If the attacker was female, I'd be even more reticent to lay a hit.

Bottom line: The guy who tackled the girl was fine. The girl who laid a knee on her was ok. The "stomper" was out of line.

[revolutionary8]

I'm old, I'm out of shape.

But I assure you, if it came down to stopping a threat to Ron Paul, my old Army/martial arts/Rugby training would kick in and I'd lay a righteous hit on the guy charging toward the candidate (Ben Gay would heal my aging muscles).

However, if the 'attacker" was DOWN, I would not lay the wood. I might sit on him, but would not lay a hit on him or stomp him.

If the attacker was female, I'd be even more reticent to lay a hit.

Bottom line: The guy who tackled the girl was fine. The girl who laid a knee on her was ok. The "stomper" was out of line.

Absolutely, and yes, that is all I am trying to get at here. It is difficult to keep from being painted in to the "hypocrit/jack booted thug" box, but this is one of the main reasons that this sort of action should be examined and looked at from a realistic standpoint. Many of us have been and will be at political events in the future, and if this sort of provacteuring is deemed as sucessful, then I think we might see more instances in the future. The boy who cried wolf comes to mind. :(

[libertarian4321]

I don't think anyone would argue with you about that here, but the frustrating part is that it is getting lumped in to one whole "scenario" where we are being coerced in to having to choose between "innocent victim" and a "jack booted thug" or "Puritan" vs. "Hypocrit".
It doesn't work that way. Regardless we will see what comes out in court. Hopefully the prior attempts to warn the police and Valle as a convicted felon providing false documents to police. Perhaps the police will agree to charge Valle. They certainly should. Refusing to provide id is one thing, providing fake id to authorities is another all together.

libertarian,
you forgot to mention the part about Valle SMILING as he stepped on her shoulder. It is apparent that she was in no pain. This point is lost in the forums, but I bet it will be discussed in court. I am sure that harm to the individual will come in to question...

Yeah, and Brock Lesnar smiled as he was getting his ass beat by Cain Velasques and Shane Carwin. Doesn't mean it didn't hurt.

As a boxer and rugger in my youth, I often smiled when I got smacked hard- you don't let the other bastard know he got to you, even when he knocks you silly. You'll see it in almost ANY boxing match- when a guy gets cracked hard, he'll smile to show he wasn't hurt (even though he was)

Was the girl really hurt? Hell, I don't know. But if you don't stomp her, you don't give her the opportunity to pretend she was hurt.

Bottom line: Don't use excessive force, ESPECIALLY against women. No one wants to see a beat down, especially when it's a male beating down a much smaller female.

It just gives the opposition ammo.

[libertarian4321]

Absolutely, and yes, that is all I am trying to get at here. It is difficult to keep from being painted in to the "hypocrit/jack booted thug" box, but this is one of the main reasons that this sort of action should be examined and looked at from a realistic standpoint. Many of us have been and will be at political events in the future, and if this sort of provacteuring is deemed as sucessful, then I think we might see more instances in the future. The boy who cried wolf comes to mind. :(

If you do see someone who you perceive as a threat, TACKLE THEM- like you learned in Pop Warner football. Hit at the waist, wrap your arms, and take them down. This works, even if you weigh 150 and your opponent weighs 225.

No one gets hurt, the "threat" is eliminated and you don't end up on "Olbermann" for 5 nights in a row looking like a jack booted thug.

[revolutionary8]

Bottom line: Don't use excessive force, ESPECIALLY against women. No one wants to see a beat down, especially when it's a male beating down a much smaller female.

It just gives the opposition ammo.

That really is the bottom line. This may be a sign that Rand needs more professionally trained security personell volunteers w/in the crowds that can respond to events such as these. I don't think it would be a bad idea for any candidate. It is a thin line, because journalists should have ample opportunity to approach the candidates when neccesary. Valle was obviously not "part of the press" as a convicted felon who was told to "stay there" by police after providing them with a fake ID, but I can see this as being a thin line.

A person who has been professionaly trained that has a cool head (and a good back) will have a better grasp on just what "excessive force" is. It may seem obvious to people like us, but I wasn't there, and some of the people who were there seem to understand better why Profitt may have acted in the manner that he did. I think it was probably out of character for him, and I am glad that others stopped him. It seemed like a very intense situation where people were generally concerned about Rand's safety.

I just don't want to see this guy demonized, and I don't want to see the people that sympathize with the situation demonized for sympathizing.

[james1906]

YouTube - Eduard Hil` - Vocalise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNxygsLGHSQ)

[MelissaWV]

That is EXACTLY what she is doing and she is doing it over in the Rand forum, and especially trying to lump us all together as some sort of "police brutality is great unless it is us" kind of thing... it's weird.

Melissa-
The man is going to court. He might be charged. Either way, he is being held accountable for his actions. Our supporters, put their hands in front of him and yelled at him to stop, Mr. Proffitt, immediately removed his shoe from her rear deltoid.

For some reason, people like to concentrate more on one man who might or might not have acted impulsively and OUT OF CHARACTER in the heat of the moment, rather than those who responded accordingly and told him to remove his foot. As sailingaway said, he may have had mitigating circumstances in his particular case. It will be up to the judge to decide.

Mr. Profitt wanted to avoid this, thus he informed the police. They refused to act even after the THIRD charge, and Mr. Profitt reacted. I don't believe for one second he ever wanted to be in the position he was in. It seems as though he was trying to AVOID it, but you don't want think about that. "Jack Booted Thugs" PLACE themselves in the postition that they are in, they do NOT try to avoid it, they run right for it, jump in with both steel toes.

Comparisons of jack booted thugery to Mr. Profitt, a volunteer for Rand Paul, acting out in the heat of the moment after he warned the police about the convicted felon in the disguise is deceitful and slanderous at worst and shallow at best.

Actually I mentioned all of those things as well. My disagreement is with those using their psychic powers of deduction to come up with reasons why it is okay. Reread some of the posts, and how it was his fear that made him do it, or it was to send a message, or it was to this, that, or another thing. If those are all valid excuses, then they will be valid when used in a similar situation (like if Hannity's people had pinned down one of the people throwing snowballs at him).

You can pick any one of the threads about brutality, and say the officer was afraid, or that he felt he was sending a message, or that it was the heat of the moment. In fact, people often do that in comments associated with the article/video in question. The defense of violence via these cliches is a problem. It's used as an excuse in everything from setting your foot on someone to war crimes. The level of violence is not the same, no, but the excuses sound eerily similar. It's not being "PC" to apply the same standards to all of those situations where the excuses pop up. It's being consistent.

Your comments about not avoiding it could very easily be turned around. Play Devil's Advocate with that for a minute. If he knew there was going to be trouble, he "placed himself" there, too, just as the thugs in your example did. He dove into the fray, or rather stepped on the fray after the fact.

The reason people are talking about it is simply that other people seem hell bent on making up excuses for him. His back hurts, which is why he had to step on her (he was earlier helping tackle her). He was neutralizing her, which is why he had to step on her (but only for a moment; then she was no longer a threat). He was sending a message (which he then realized he could verbalize, so he did so).

Later comments in this thread still agree with my sentiment, and are quite cogent. The guy acted how he acted, and now it's up to the courts. Will people let it rest based on the court's decision? It's going to depend on the outcome. If he's found guilty of something, some people will still defend him and say the courts are unfair.

I am not painting this guy as anything. This guy is apparently a volunteer, he had a lot to do with eliminating a threat, and he did something that was uncalled for. Certain people on the forums, though, will argue it was called for... and more would have been excusable, too. I have to question what planet those people live on, when they're some of the same ones who get so riled when the police use the same tactics, or who would be outraged if it were a forum member talking about getting stepped on.

I am also not the only one talking about that, but if it makes you feel better to single me out, go for it. I'm done being a broken record.

[angelatc]

Originally Posted by libertarian4321 :
C'mon, she went down in a heap and made no attempt to get up.

Socialist activists are taught to do this. That's also probably why her male companion made no attempt to defend her. Or maybe he's just a wimp.

[klamath]

I've been here for 3.5 years, posted 3,000 times, donated thousands of dollars to Ron Paul, RAND PAUL, and other libertarian candidates (and my wife had donated as much, though she isn't into the sign waving thing), gone to countless Ron Paul rallies, done sign waves, donated thousands of dollars of equipment to the San Antonio Ron Paul 2008 HQ, went to the Rally for the Republic (with several other SA Ron Paul supporters), and run for office myself as a libertarian candidate in 1998, 2000. 20002, 2004, 2006, and 2010 (I didn't run in 2008 because IO was a Republican delegate for RON PAUL) only so I could lie in wait and make a "liberal" plea on this post.

Fuck, you got me.

You are one clever son of a bitch.

You're freakin' brilliant for figuring out my strategy.

All these years I laid in in wait, hoping I wouldn't be caught by someone of your overwhelming freakin' intellect- I came here in 2007 just hoping to sabotage Rand Paul (years before he announced his candidacy).

Well, either that or maybe as a man I just think it's wrong to stomp on a female who is down and obviously no threat...

You make the call, genius.
When you repeat over and over and over the talking points of the democrats you have become the opposition. Very very few people here have defended the stomper. Almost everyone here knew that was bad for the campaign and the left is playing it for all it is worth. Out of hand you dismiss that Rand was getting assaulted yet you carry on an on and on about this women. This is exactly what I am seeing done in the left media. You are only focusing on the stomper and not the whole picture exactly as the left media is doing.
I am no advocate of violence as anyone around these forums knows. I also hold old fashioned ideas that you treat women different. I also have not or ever have overlooked stupid actions by RP supporters. I condemed the hanity snowball throwing as well as the comments to throw Rudy off the ferry. I have held that the grassroots of the RP campaign did more harm to RP's chances than the ineptness of the official campaign. However when I hear democratic taling points repeated over and over about an incident, Rand had nothing to do with, from someone that in susposed to be pro Rand it starts to look like oposition. The whole anti Rand campaign is playing this "completely innocent" women as the victim as you appear to be doing.

[TheDriver]

Actually I mentioned all of those things as well. My disagreement is with those using their psychic powers of deduction to come up with reasons why it is okay. Reread some of the posts, and how it was his fear that made him do it, or it was to send a message, or it was to this, that, or another thing. If those are all valid excuses, then they will be valid when used in a similar situation (like if Hannity's people had pinned down one of the people throwing snowballs at him).

You can pick any one of the threads about brutality, and say the officer was afraid, or that he felt he was sending a message, or that it was the heat of the moment. In fact, people often do that in comments associated with the article/video in question. The defense of violence via these cliches is a problem. It's used as an excuse in everything from setting your foot on someone to war crimes. The level of violence is not the same, no, but the excuses sound eerily similar. It's not being "PC" to apply the same standards to all of those situations where the excuses pop up. It's being consistent.

Your comments about not avoiding it could very easily be turned around. Play Devil's Advocate with that for a minute. If he knew there was going to be trouble, he "placed himself" there, too, just as the thugs in your example did. He dove into the fray, or rather stepped on the fray after the fact.

The reason people are talking about it is simply that other people seem hell bent on making up excuses for him. His back hurts, which is why he had to step on her (he was earlier helping tackle her). He was neutralizing her, which is why he had to step on her (but only for a moment; then she was no longer a threat). He was sending a message (which he then realized he could verbalize, so he did so).

Later comments in this thread still agree with my sentiment, and are quite cogent. The guy acted how he acted, and now it's up to the courts. Will people let it rest based on the court's decision? It's going to depend on the outcome. If he's found guilty of something, some people will still defend him and say the courts are unfair.

I am not painting this guy as anything. This guy is apparently a volunteer, he had a lot to do with eliminating a threat, and he did something that was uncalled for. Certain people on the forums, though, will argue it was called for... and more would have been excusable, too. I have to question what planet those people live on, when they're some of the same ones who get so riled when the police use the same tactics, or who would be outraged if it were a forum member talking about getting stepped on.

I am also not the only one talking about that, but if it makes you feel better to single me out, go for it. I'm done being a broken record.

Perhaps some of us know the person and have talked to him firsthand, as well as eyewitnesses. You've seen a video or two and read some stuff on the internet, just saying.

[revolutionary8]

Actually I mentioned all of those things as well. My disagreement is with those using their psychic powers of deduction to come up with reasons why it is okay.
I really don't remember anyone here saying it was "okay". Could you show me the context that the members used that you are speaking of?


Reread some of the posts, and how it was his fear that made him do it, or it was to send a message, or it was to this, that, or another thing. If those are all valid excuses, then they will be valid when used in a similar situation (like if Hannity's people had pinned down one of the people throwing snowballs at him).
I don't see why you look at is this way Melissa, this is just what I think others, as well as myself are talking about- what I see is SPECULATION behind why ONE OF OUR OWN did what he did. That is all I see. Motive is not only discussed by the courts, it is discussed by people who know him, who are around him, who were there at the time of the incident, who might be in a similar circumstance in the future. Speculation upon movitve in this particular situation has many benefits. Once again, this is OUR BACK YARD, this is not a you tube video where we know NO ONE that is involved. Apples meet organges.


You can pick any one of the threads about brutality, and say the officer was afraid, or that he felt he was sending a message, or that it was the heat of the moment. In fact, people often do that in comments associated with the article/video in question. The defense of violence via these cliches is a problem. It's used as an excuse in everything from setting your foot on someone to war crimes. The level of violence is not the same, no, but the excuses sound eerily similar. It's not being "PC" to apply the same standards to all of those situations where the excuses pop up. It's being consistent.
No "we" can because some of "us" were there, many of us have met, shaken hands with Rand Paul, and people in his family. You can't possibly disassociate this case from it's own reality.


Your comments about not avoiding it could very easily be turned around. Play Devil's Advocate with that for a minute. If he knew there was going to be trouble, he "placed himself" there, too, just as the thugs in your example did. He dove into the fray, or rather stepped on the fray after the fact.
Ridiculous. Mr. Proffitt was not there for Moon Bat. He was there for Rand Paul


The reason people are talking about it is simply that other people seem hell bent on making up excuses for him. His back hurts, which is why he had to step on her (he was earlier helping tackle her). He was neutralizing her, which is why he had to step on her (but only for a moment; then she was no longer a threat). He was sending a message (which he then realized he could verbalize, so he did so). No, the reason people are talking about it is because THEY CARE. They care about this movement, they care about Rand Paul and his safeity. They care about his supporters.


Later comments in this thread still agree with my sentiment, and are quite cogent. The guy acted how he acted, and now it's up to the courts. Will people let it rest based on the court's decision? It's going to depend on the outcome. If he's found guilty of something, some people will still defend him and say the courts are unfair.
This is downright arrogant. You actuall suggest that all the people that disagree with you are "not cognant.". Enough said.


I am not painting this guy as anything. This guy is apparently a volunteer, he had a lot to do with eliminating a threat, and he did something that was uncalled for. Certain people on the forums, though, will argue it was called for... and more would have been excusable, too. I have to question what planet those people live on, when they're some of the same ones who get so riled when the police use the same tactics, or who would be outraged if it were a forum member talking about getting stepped on.
keep saying you are not "painting" this guy as "anything" while you call everyone who disagrees with you (regardless of whether or not they were there) "unaware"


I am also not the only one talking about that, but if it makes you feel better to single me out, go for it. I'm done being a broken record.
Of course you aren't, but your responses to me, personally, seem especially arrogant, so that is why I am having a conversation w/ you about this. On top of that, doesn't the fact that "you arent' the only one" negate your whole premise that the majority here are part of a pack of rabid jack booted thugs when put in "certain circumstances" that they are not cognently able of comprehending?

so help me Gawd, it won't be the IGNORANCE that rips up this country, it will be the ARROGANCE.

[james1906]

must...derail..thread

YouTube - Grandma Stair Yodel Cliff Hanger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnZsJIJfIw)

[revolutionary8]

I was wondering what HELL you were doing james. LMAO! I thought at first you posted in the wrong thread.
now I get it.
sorry. :D I get carried away, I am sure I'll want a modified version of the stair yodler if I make it to be that age. :D

[revolutionary8]

???

[MelissaWV]

...
No "we" can because some of "us" were there, many of us have met, shaken hands with Rand Paul, and people in his family. You can't possibly disassociate this case from it's own reality.

You're making some really silly, baseless assumptions here.


Ridiculous. Mr. Proffitt was not there for Moon Bat. He was there for Rand Paul

So the earlier posts talking about how he had talked to the police about this woman being a potential threat are inaccurate? If he did that, and then was right there to make up for the police's inaction, then the argument that the police are deliberately putting themselves in a bad situation is moot. I find it to be a silly argument, frankly, but you are the one that made it. Most of the important things that ever happen historically occur when someone tosses themselves into a situation they know is probably going to get really bad really fast.


No, the reason people are talking about it is because THEY CARE. They care about this movement, they care about Rand Paul and his safeity. They care about his supporters.

Then why aren't there at least a half dozen threads applauding the guy who tackled the woman to the ground, who fell over with her, and who used his hands to hold her down? That's a supporter, and someone who cared about safety. If your argument here held water, the focus would not be on this guy.

One problem is the media cherry-picking this portion of a much longer event, but I believe it will backfire. People I have been around who know nothing of the incident other than the brief "stomp" shown on the news have all questioned what she did to be on the ground. Irony of ironies, they see someone on the ground restrained and their first thought is what the person did to deserve it. These are folks who usually do the same when the police have someone on the ground, and who argue with me that whoever's on the ground must have done something terrible (like speed, or drive drunk).

Another problem is people saying this is okay or that more was warranted. I guess I need to put a number in front of "people," however, because you have warped the word "people" to mean "a majority of forum posters are jack-booted thugs."


This is downright arrogant. You actuall suggest that all the people that disagree with you are "not cognant.". Enough said.

No, I suggested my posts were NOT cogent to you, and that further along people seemed to phrase it in a way that you "got." I did not say other posts were uncogent. I said that some of them expressed my point of view cogently. How you construed something self-depricating as an insult to people who disagree with me, I'll never know, but it definitely demonstrates my point far more elegantly than I ever could.


keep saying you are not "painting" this guy as "anything" while you call everyone who disagrees with you (regardless of whether or not they were there) "unaware"

I did a search on each page of this thread for "unaware" and only came up with your instance. The idea that I'm talking about "everyone" is also manufactured. The posting of the video was about the fact that Matt Collins said she was unrestrained and the man in question was holding her down with his foot. That argument is refuted by looking at that portion of video.

Being "there" does not mean you could see what happened, by the way, though it gives you a unique perspective on the tone of the moment. Once again this is the same argument that is often used by the police or by military when they do something stupid: it was the heat of the moment/battle! Do you accept it as mitigation when it's in relation to that circumstance?


Of course you aren't, but your responses to me, personally, seem especially arrogant, so that is why I am having a conversation w/ you about this. On top of that, doesn't the fact that "you arent' the only one" negate your whole premise that the majority here are part of a pack of rabid jack booted thugs when put in "certain circumstances" that they are not cognently able of comprehending?

Now it's the "majority" and not "everyone"? Thank you for the benefit of your doubt. The consistency and logic of the arguments applied by some people in these threads has astounding holes in it, and I pointed them out. If you disagree, you disagree, but the twisting of that to say that I believe the majority of people on the forums are jack-booted thugs (should I do a search to see when I said that?) is a lie.


so help me Gawd, it won't be the IGNORANCE that rips up this country, it will be the ARROGANCE.

It won't be lying about what fellow forum members say? It won't, actually, because in the grand scheme of what happens in the country the forums mean very little. The court of public opinion is not staffed by folks who know who the Pauls are, or who dream of removing the yoke but instead sit around trying to figure out how to make it prettier or how to transfer it to someone else.

Once again, thanks to the guy that actually tackled the woman. That part is edited out of the quick visual byte on the major news broadcasts for a reason. It looks like a genuine, heroic move. It was. We don't know what this woman was up to. No one knows what's going on in that kooky noggin but her, and even that is doubtful.


It's like herding cats around here, and we all know it, but it seems you are trying to say that this is some sort of "pattern". I don't agree at all and I think it is shortsighted and shallow to compare this case to others who we know NONE of who was involved.

Now THAT sounds like an indictment of "everyone." :D ;)

* * * If you want to respond, let's just do it via PM. Upon reflection, I don't see a need to bump this thread to resolve what amounts to a misunderstanding and you misrepresenting what I said.

[MelissaWV]

You asked to be directed to people saying things that could be construed as saying it was justified/okay. This is just from two threads. Keep in mind that no one has said this woman is innocent; quite the opposite. She's bonkers.


Thats right sheep STAND DOWN. Do not protect Rand. STAND DOWN. Do not attempt to stop the assassination of Rand Paul. STAND DOWN.... It was a love push down on the ground.



He stepped on her shoulder, it what looked like an attempt to keep her down.


He wasn't trying to hurt her, merely keep her on the ground until the cops arrived.


You start violence you reap violence.


She is still alive, and undeterred, and no doubt plotting her next attack.


Personally I wouldn't care if they had snapped her worthless neck.


Well she deserved what she got.


He may have thought she was on PCP or ACID and a danger, we don't know.


This woman should be watched!... monitored by DHS until the election is over at least. Not to mention local authorities need to check her arrest record...

As usual, a vocal minority, but I'm perplexed as to why people either don't think they exist or pretend that none of those are excuses or applause.

* * * If you want to respond, let's just do it via PM. Upon reflection, I don't see a need to bump this thread to resolve what amounts to a misunderstanding and you misrepresenting what I said.

[LibertyEagle]

Melissa, when are you going to give this a rest? You are talking about this more than the MSM.

[MelissaWV]

Melissa, when are you going to give this a rest? You are talking about this more than the MSM.

Funny, I remember you posting ad nauseum to a certain someone who was lying about you :) At some point, I just stopped clicking on it. I certainly stopped commenting, which would have bumped the thread back to the top of "New Posts."

[klamath]

MelissaWV;2954911]You asked to be directed to people saying things that could be construed as saying it was justified/okay. This is just from two threads. Keep in mind that no one has said this woman is innocent; quite the opposite. She's bonkers















As usual, a vocal minority, but I'm perplexed as to why people either don't think they exist or pretend that none of those are excuses or applause
Bullshit Melissa. When I said "You start violence you reap violence" it has nothing to do with justifing his actions. Are you sure you weren't there with Rudy saying RP justified 911 when he said we had been bombing them for ten years? It is called blowback.:rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

Funny, I remember you posting ad nauseum to a certain someone who was lying about you :) At some point, I just stopped clicking on it. I certainly stopped commenting, which would have bumped the thread back to the top of "New Posts."

The difference is that the MSM is using this to smear one of our candidates, Melissa.

[MelissaWV]

The difference is that the MSM is using this to smear one of our candidates, Melissa.

Yes and, curiously, in a thread that demonstrated the right thing (the campaign distancing itself, the person apologizing), people started talking instead about how the person doing the stepping was only doing this or that and why.

I guess I'll wrap this up in a shorter version:

That guy should probably apologize, and the campaign should consider distancing itself from him. Oh hey! They did! /thread :)

[pcosmar]

Yes and, curiously, in a thread that demonstrated the right thing (the campaign distancing itself, the person apologizing), people started talking instead about how the person doing the stepping was only doing this or that and why.

I guess I'll wrap this up in a shorter version:

That guy should probably apologize, and the campaign should consider distancing itself from him. Oh hey! They did! /thread :)

:confused:

They guy fell on his sword. He apologized.
And folks want to gang up on him. :(

I haven't seen apologies from the attacker.

The man fell on his sword.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/133350.html

[Inflation]

She never touched him. Never even got close to touching him, and there is no indication that she had any intention of touching him.
She was looking to make a scene, not assault Rand Paul.

Um, no. You are incorrect: http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-video-shows-moveon-activist-attempted-to-assault-rand-paul.html

Did you see the video from before the take-down, where she ran up to Senator Paul's car and tried to shove something through the window, as others chase her and shout "stop her?"

YouTube - Rand Paul and Lauren Valle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM&feature=player_embedded)


Did you notice the guy in the suit BODY-CHECK the living snot out of her, denying her physical proximity to Senator Paul?

That guy in the suit hit her WAY harder than the Meet-Up people. He was probably professional security, if not Secret Service.

The Security Goon's effective, violent action was justified by the assailant's assault on Senator Paul, therefore other actions performed to take the assailant down ASAP are also justified.

It was not a stomp. A stomp is like a kick and uses the heel of the foot, not a firm push with the front of the foot. The assailant would not be smiling and unharmed if a genuine stomp (curb or otherwise) had been administered.

You seem to approach this incident like it was one of your MMA gladiator spectacles. How distasteful; this was not a fight it was a security emergency.

The assailant needed to be taken down and disabled ASAP. She needed to be denied access to anything within reach of her hands.

It was not an MMA match, it was Senator Paul being assaulted by enemy with unknown capabilities.

Blaming the heroes that sacrificed their public image, privacy, and enjoyable relationship with the rEVOLution to keep Senator Paul from harm is not acceptable.

The MMA macho 'what I woulda dun' BS-talk is particularly low-brow and irritating.

Learning from a mistake is one thing; Monday morning quarterbacking heat-of-the-moment actions that kept Senator Paul from harm is quite another.

[FSP-Rebel]

Injected: Rand ftw!

[LibertyEagle]

Um, no. You are incorrect: http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-video-shows-moveon-activist-attempted-to-assault-rand-paul.html

Did you see the video from before the take-down, where she ran up to Senator Paul's car and tried to shove something through the window, as others chase her and shout "stop her?"

YouTube - Rand Paul and Lauren Valle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM&feature=player_embedded)


Did you notice the guy in the suit BODY-CHECK the living snot out of her, denying her physical proximity to Senator Paul?

That guy in the suit hit her WAY harder than the Meet-Up people. He was probably professional security, if not Secret Service.

The Security Goon's effective, violent action was justified by the assailant's assault on Senator Paul, therefore other actions performed to take the assailant down ASAP are also justified.

It was not a stomp. A stomp is like a kick and uses the heel of the foot, not a firm push with the front of the foot. The assailant would not be smiling and unharmed if a genuine stomp (curb or otherwise) had been administered.

You seem to approach this incident like it was one of your MMA gladiator spectacles. How distasteful; this was not a fight it was a security emergency.

The assailant needed to be taken down and disabled ASAP. She needed to be denied access to anything within reach of her hands.

It was not an MMA match, it was Senator Paul being assaulted by enemy with unknown capabilities.

Blaming the heroes that sacrificed their pubic image, privacy, and enjoyable relationship with the rEVOLution to keep Senator Paul from harm is not acceptable.

The MMA macho 'what I woulda dun' BS-talk is particularly low-brow and irritating.

Learning from a mistake is one thing; Monday morning quarterbacking heat-of-the-moment actions that kept Senator Paul from harm is quite another.


http://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/images/applause.gif

[jmdrake]

Not hardly, 5'2".

Ok, so she was taller than Kathleen Starnes or Bobby Petray. Big whoop?


She wasn't small :rolleyes:

Matt, my wife's taller than 5'2", and she's no Amazon by any stretch. (My mom is almost 5'2 and I consider her tiny.) And if some dufus punk man decided to step on her shoulder in order to keep her down....well I won't say any more because I know this board is watched.

If the roles were reversed and this was some Ron Paul supporter being taken down for crossing the line (anybody remember snowballs and Sean Hannity?) would people here be as "understanding" to the assailant? I had an ongoing argument with a friend on another board who is on the opposite side (left wing liberal) who is all up in arms about this incident, but never had boo to say about the black conservative passing out Gadsen flags beat up by white liberal union thugs at a healthcare town hall meeting. I asked him what he would think if I was the black man being beat up by the union thugs. He said "but of course". My point to him, and to you, is that in any situation like this, recast the person as person getting beat up or stepped on or whatever as someone you actually cared about and ask yourself if you would react the same way, even if the person being assaulted somehow "deserved" it to some degree.

Yes the woman was a provocateur. And tennis shoe guy played right into it. I'm sure he meant well. He still screwed up. The woman was already down and his foot on her shoulder clearly wasn't needed to keep her down. How do I know this when I wasn't there? Because after his foot was gone she didn't get up.

If tennis shoe guy really thought he needed to help, and maybe he felt that way, he could have gone down to the ground himself and put his hand on her shoulder. Anyway, the one guy that had already taken the woman had good control. I'm quite confident that I'd be able to keep a 250 lbs man down from that position and I only weigh 190. Half nelsons and other holds can come in quite handy at times.

[silverhandorder]

Rand Paul supporter would not assault people.

[jmdrake]

Um, no. You are incorrect: http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-video-shows-moveon-activist-attempted-to-assault-rand-paul.html

Did you see the video from before the take-down, where she ran up to Senator Paul's car and tried to shove something through the window, as others chase her and shout "stop her?"

YouTube - Rand Paul and Lauren Valle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM&feature=player_embedded)


Did you notice the guy in the suit BODY-CHECK the living snot out of her, denying her physical proximity to Senator Paul?

That guy in the suit hit her WAY harder than the Meet-Up people. He was probably professional security, if not Secret Service.

The Security Goon's effective, violent action was justified by the assailant's assault on Senator Paul, therefore other actions performed to take the assailant down ASAP are also justified.

It was not a stomp. A stomp is like a kick and uses the heel of the foot, not a firm push with the front of the foot. The assailant would not be smiling and unharmed if a genuine stomp (curb or otherwise) had been administered.

You seem to approach this incident like it was one of your MMA gladiator spectacles. How distasteful; this was not a fight it was a security emergency.

The assailant needed to be taken down and disabled ASAP. She needed to be denied access to anything within reach of her hands.

It was not an MMA match, it was Senator Paul being assaulted by enemy with unknown capabilities.

Blaming the heroes that sacrificed their public image, privacy, and enjoyable relationship with the rEVOLution to keep Senator Paul from harm is not acceptable.

The MMA macho 'what I woulda dun' BS-talk is particularly low-brow and irritating.

Learning from a mistake is one thing; Monday morning quarterbacking heat-of-the-moment actions that kept Senator Paul from harm is quite another.

I hope you understand that you undercut your own analysis. Suit guy did not step on her shoulder. I'll use the word step because people are being persnickity over the word "stop". Suit guy did it right. Tennis shoe "stepper" did not. He didn't even look like he knew what he was doing. He meant well, but he was clueless. I doubt you would have seen suit guy stepping on her shoulder or doing anything else that looked unprofessional.

Also you have no way of knowing from the video hard hard the woman was "body checked". Circumstantial evidence points to the fact that it was clearly not as hard as you think! Why? Because she wasn't hurt by it. If you know what you're doing you can move in on someone fast without finally hitting them hard. You mentioned the MMA. Had suit guy put the force of an MMA takedown on MoveOn girl she would not have been coming back for more. She might have had a broken rib.

Also nobody is talking about suit guy. Nobody is talking about the guy that took MoveOn girl to the ground later. Everyone is talking about the guy that looked very unsure of himself putting his foot on her shoulder and stepping down. His simply didn't need to. Other people on the scene waved him away. The woman wasn't getting up before or after the "step" or "stomp" or whatever you want to call it.

Finally, considering the fact that Rand has already handled this, why does anybody care? Tennis shoe guy made a mistake. He admitted it was a mistake. Rand clearly said it was a mistake. Rand was right to say it was a mistake. The fact that one of Rand's supporters made a mistake in no way negatively affects Rand. The fact that Rand supporters are trying to make a unnecessary mistake into some kind of "heroic action" only hurts this movement in the long run. You want to call agreeing with Rand and the guy that actually made the mistake "Monday morning quarterbacking"? Fine. Whatever. But if the quarterback throws 5 interceptions in a game or gets penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct then people are going to point out the mistake. Pretending it didn't happen or that it was the "right thing to do" changes nothing.

This is a non issue. Rand's going to win anyway.

[silverhandorder]

I hope you understand that you undercut your own analysis. Suit guy did not step on her shoulder. I'll use the word step because people are being persnickity over the word "stop". Suit guy did it right. Tennis shoe "stepper" did not. He didn't even look like he knew what he was doing. He meant well, but he was clueless. I doubt you would have seen suit guy stepping on her shoulder or doing anything else that looked unprofessional.


Funny thing the suit guy probably did more damage to her with the shove then the old guy stepping on her. She certainly took more damage from falling on the floor with a grown man on her then an old man stepping on her.

[james1906]

Must deploy an army of zombies to kill this thread.

YouTube - Zombie Kid Likes Turtles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y)
YouTube - Zombie Kid Likes Turtles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y)
YouTube - Zombie Kid Likes Turtles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y)
YouTube - Zombie Kid Likes Turtles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y)

[jmdrake]

:confused:

They guy fell on his sword. He apologized.
And folks want to gang up on him. :(

I haven't seen apologies from the attacker.

The man fell on his sword.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/133350.html

MelissaVW's point is that the guy DID "fall on his sword" so to speak, but folks aren't letting sleeping dogs lie (to use another analogy). I see no point of the OP. But all of this "It was a grand heroic act on par with the actions of the professional that moved her away from the truck in the first place" or "This woman was some giant Amazon because she was taller than Matt Collins" stuff provokes a response from that some may perceive as "ganging up". Bottom line. Everyone makes mistakes. This guy admitted he made a mistake. Banning him from future events is a bit harsh, but at least it shows the campaign took the issue seriously and that shielded it from further criticism from sane people. (Some insane types will never be satisfied).

[jmdrake]

Rand Paul supporter would not assault people.

So Ron Paul supporters who threw snowballs at Sean Hannity don't support Rand? (Actually that's battery. Assault is making someone think that you are going to make contact. Sean was hit. And it doesn't matter that he wasn't hurt. It's still battery as long as the contact was "harmful or offensive".) And yes MoveOn girl at least assaulted Rand and she should have been arrested.


Funny thing the suit guy probably did more damage to her with the shove then the old guy stepping on her. She certainly took more damage from falling on the floor with a grown man on her then an old man stepping on her.

Maybe you're watching a different video. Or maybe you don't understand what you saw. Suit guy didn't take the MoveOn girl down. That happened later. He just pushed her away from the SUV. And it's possible to take someone down without hurting them, even on concrete. If you know what you're doing you can break someone's fall as you take them down. Also the age of the man doing the stepping is irrelevant. All that matters is the weight. Regardless, what he did was pointless. Younger guys already had her down and under control. He should have stayed out of it. He made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. End of story.

[Matt Collins]

John, are you coming to the party on Tues night? If not you should.

Either way, I can give you a better explanation on this topic in person.

[jmdrake]

John, are you coming to the party on Tues night? If not you should.

Either way, I can give you a better explanation on this topic in person.

I'm planning on it. And while I look forward to your explanation, I sincerely doubt it will change my opinion on this. So don't get your hopes up. ;) I can promise you this. No explanation you could give me will change the fact that continuing to try to publicly defend the publicly indefensible only makes the movement look bad. I know because I don't spend all of my time in the Ron Paul / GOP "echo chamber". Sometimes the only way forward is what Rand did in this case and say "This was a mistake. I'm sorry that this mistake was done in my name" and move on. (No pun intended).

[Matt Collins]

I'm planning on it. And while I look forward to your explanation, I sincerely doubt it will change my opinion on this. So don't get your hopes up. ;) Yes, but I was there 5ft away and have a bit of an unique perspective. But as mentioned, I'll explain that in person. :)




say "This was a mistake. I'm sorry that this mistake was done in my name" and move on. (No pun intended).I tend to agree with this
too.


See ya Tues night, it's gonna be a blast! :D

[jmdrake]

Yes, but I was there 5ft away and have a bit of an unique perspective. But as mentioned, I'll explain that in person. :)


I think you don't understand the point I was making. It really has nothing to do with anything you might have seen prior to the "foot step". The best way I could explain it is if we were in a gym with a mat and I laid down on my side, let you put your foot on my shoulder and I showed you what would happen from there. But that's not something that can be shown at a party. ;)



I tend to agree with this
too.


See ya Tues night, it's gonna be a blast! :D

See ya then.

[PaleoForPaul]

Some libertarians claim to believe in the non aggression principle. What many of you really believe is the "non aggression ever against anyone no matter what" principle.

[amy31416]

Some libertarians claim to believe in the non aggression principle. What many of you really believe is the "non aggression ever against anyone no matter what" principle.

I'd pop you in the nose if you had it coming...don't fret!

[pcosmar]

I'd pop you in the nose if you had it coming...don't fret!

Dang, and I already +repped you today.

I tried to kill this thread a couple times
no joy.

Dumb thread is dumb.
:p

[amy31416]

Dang, and I already +repped you today.

I tried to kill this thread a couple times
no joy.

Dumb thread is dumb.
:p

Lots and lots of blathering over a dead issue.

Repped ya right back though. :)

[Inflation]

Matt, my wife's taller than 5'2", and she's no Amazon by any stretch. (My mom is almost 5'2 and I consider her tiny.) And if some dufus punk man decided to step on her shoulder in order to keep her down....well I won't say any more because I know this board is watched.


Yes the woman was a provocateur. And tennis shoe guy played right into it. I'm sure he meant well. He still screwed up. The woman was already down and his foot on her shoulder clearly wasn't needed to keep her down. How do I know this when I wasn't there? Because after his foot was gone she didn't get up.

If tennis shoe guy really thought he needed to help, and maybe he felt that way, he could have gone down to the ground himself and put his hand on her shoulder. Anyway, the one guy that had already taken the woman had good control. I'm quite confident that I'd be able to keep a 250 lbs man down from that position and I only weigh 190. Half nelsons and other holds can come in quite handy at times.

You are still Monday morning quarterbacking, so why not also tell us how the Rangers "should have" played against the Giants?

You are still confusing a security emergency with one of your UFC rasslin' matches.

You are still confusing a heat-of-the-moment response with your Internet Tough Guy macho BS.

You are still too emotionally invested in defending your Fight Club POV to get anything out of my previous post.



I hope you understand that you undercut your own analysis. Suit guy did not step on her shoulder. I'll use the word step because people are being persnickity over the word "stop". Suit guy did it right. Tennis shoe "stepper" did not. He didn't even look like he knew what he was doing. He meant well, but he was clueless. I doubt you would have seen suit guy stepping on her shoulder or doing anything else that looked unprofessional.

Also you have no way of knowing from the video hard hard the woman was "body checked". Circumstantial evidence points to the fact that it was clearly not as hard as you think! Why? Because she wasn't hurt by it. If you know what you're doing you can move in on someone fast without finally hitting them hard. You mentioned the MMA. Had suit guy put the force of an MMA takedown on MoveOn girl she would not have been coming back for more. She might have had a broken rib.

Also nobody is talking about suit guy. Nobody is talking about the guy that took MoveOn girl to the ground later. Everyone is talking about the guy that looked very unsure of himself putting his foot on her shoulder and stepping down. His simply didn't need to. Other people on the scene waved him away. The woman wasn't getting up before or after the "step" or "stomp" or whatever you want to call it.

Finally, considering the fact that Rand has already handled this, why does anybody care? Tennis shoe guy made a mistake. He admitted it was a mistake. Rand clearly said it was a mistake. Rand was right to say it was a mistake. The fact that one of Rand's supporters made a mistake in no way negatively affects Rand. The fact that Rand supporters are trying to make a unnecessary mistake into some kind of "heroic action" only hurts this movement in the long run. You want to call agreeing with Rand and the guy that actually made the mistake "Monday morning quarterbacking"? Fine. Whatever. But if the quarterback throws 5 interceptions in a game or gets penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct then people are going to point out the mistake. Pretending it didn't happen or that it was the "right thing to do" changes nothing.

This is a non issue. Rand's going to win anyway.

If it's a non issue, why are you so strenuously clinging to and defending your fringe (for RPF) Rachel Maddow like opinion?

We can tell how hard Suit Guy body-checked her, based on their relative weights and the speed at which the impact took place. It's simple if you try to keep an open mind.

The body check did injure the MoveOn assailant, that's why her head hurt and she spent the night in the hospital.

Until the assailant's unknown capabilities were neutralized and evaluated, there was no way of knowing whether the foot push was critical or excessive.

That's why your supposed insight is actually 20/20 hindsight, and why your coaching is mere Rachel Maddow Monday morning speculation.