Rand Paul supporter tries to 'curb' a Moveon.org member

[Shalamar]

As far as subduing her yes. The kung fu foot was overboard though yes.

But it's real easy to sit here now and criticize with hindsight. At the time they did'nt know what her motives were.

Let me ask this? If an individual with a tea party sign approached a democrat in the same manner you dont think they would be taken down fast?

And it would be just as wrong. Just because they are on the 'other side' does not mean that they do not have a right to protest.

 

[Drysdale]

And it would be just as wrong. Just because they are on the 'other side' does not mean that they do not have a right to protest.

I strongly disagree. If someone approached Obama or Reid or whoever in an aggressive manner like she did I fully expect them to take that individual down.

We know now she did'nt have a weapon. We did'nt then.

There's a difference between protesting and being aggressive like she was.

 

[BeAChooser]

As for BAC, I can not quote him, as I have him on Ignore

LOL! And yet you placed the statement you attributed to me in quotes:

'She's lying! Look at what happened! She totally deserved it!'

 

[Shalamar]

I strongly disagree. If someone approached Obama or Reid or whoever in an aggressive manner like she did I fully expect them to take that individual down.

We know now she did'nt have a weapon. We did'nt then.

There's a difference between protesting and being aggressive like she was.

That is what their security detachments are for. I don't go around dropping people to the ground because I think They may be aggressive.

It was wrong. She was grabbed, forced to the ground, and stepped on by the supporters.

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't go around dropping people to the ground because I think They may be aggressive.

There was no "may be aggressive". The video clearly shows she WAS aggressive.

 

[eeyore1954]

There you go. Summary 'I don't approve, but she's an activist, so it was deserved'.

She did not pull out a knife. She did not pull out a gun. She had an evil socialist sign...

So that makes it ok.

I suspect you can summarize it that way because that was what you wanted to read.


She did not pull out a knife. She did not pull out a gun
the people behind her did not know she wasn't going to. should they have waited until it might have been to late.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...i see nothing on that tape that leads me to believe that there was some brown shirt approach to this woman....

Perhaps we are defining this term differently.

My definition in this case was a bunch of bullies attacking a seriously weaker target using physical intimidation against someone specifically because the person attacked had a different political point of view.

What definition are you using?

 

[Shalamar]

I suspect you can summarize it that way because that was what you wanted to read.


She did not pull out a knife. She did not pull out a gun
the people behind her did not know she wasn't going to. should they have waited until it might have been to late.

How does that justify their treatment of her? 'She might have had a gun'?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...I have no doubt she would have shoved it even further, and probably waved it around inside the car, had she not been forcefully pushed away from the window at that moment by the grey suited security guy who ran in to protect RP.....

Whoa! That was a close call for Paul.

 

[eeyore1954]

How does that justify their treatment of her? 'She might have had a gun'?

Here actions were such that they had reason to think she was dangerous.

 

[Shalamar]

Here actions were such that they had reason to think she was dangerous.

So.. stomping on her was acceptable to you then?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
First of all, these people were security, who were clearly acting to protect Rand Paul from what appeared to be a persistent and already proven dangerous (shoving a rigid sign into a moving vehicle in the face of a Congressional candidate is no laughing matter) maniac. They had every right (and it was their duty) to grab the women and force her to the ground when she persisted in her attempts to approach RP. And the video clearly shows she tried to evade capture and continued to struggle when they seized her. And she was clearly playing it up for the cameras. You can even see her smiling during part of this (or is that a maniacal grin). Also, this *poor injured, beaten and kicked senseless* maniac, who now says she can't remember anything clearly when she was on the ground, immediately got up and a minute later was giving a *seemingly* coherent interview for the TV cameras. What's that tell you, jk?
....

This is so over the top, even for you BAC.

The crowd appeared to be a bunch of Paul supporters with their own signs. I've missed any credible reference to people assigned to security doing the shoving here. Could you remind me where that evidence is? It appears to me they appointed themselves on the spot.

The rest of your rant is really ludicrous. There was no crime they needed to hold the woman for. There was no threat from waving a sign. You claiming it was a danger and trying sooo hard to describe the scene as the woman posing a risk to Paul are not making anyone see it that way.

 

[BeAChooser]

How does that justify their treatment of her? 'She might have had a gun'?

Do any of you remember this similarly red clad, wild eyed stalker?

http://www.threedonia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/squeakynewsweek.jpg

Perhaps in an age like ours, it's best not to take chances when someone clearly behaving like a maniac, and dressed like a maniac, attempts to get close to a public figure.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The TP people knew who she was, according to her. She was not hiding. They even talked about how to do" crowd control" on her before they grabbed her. This is what she said in an interview after.

 

[eeyore1954]

So.. stomping on her was acceptable to you then?

from a previous post of mine

As far as I am concerned when she was at or in the window of the car, in disguise, having already been noticed, whoever pulled her to the ground was right because she may have had a weapon and intended bodily harm or death.
I wonder what would be said here if she had shot him.

Should she have taken the cheap shot from the man with foot, no.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

..
You are the one who made a big deal out of her not planning to get a picture of RP with the sign. So obviously you must think the difference important.

Yeah, because I was correcting something I posted incorrectly. That's what was important to correct.

..
For the same reason you apparently thought it looked better if she was just there to "show" RP the sign.

I see no difference except the Paul supporters might have wanted to prevent such a photo from being taken. But when you see the video where the woman puts the sign inside the car window, there is no evidence that would have mattered.

..You just don't listen do you? Because I've very clearly stated how I feel about the man putting his foot on the woman. But whether she has a winnable case is entirely a different matter. And given the evidence in the complete video and what we now know about her past and her paid reason for being at the rally, I wouldn't be surprised that if she persists in this, she finds herself the subject of a criminal investigation as well. Because what she did could be called stalking, menace and assault.

Over the top claim on your part.

.. Afterall, not long ago we had folks on the left claiming that it was "assault" when Congressman Cleaver was allegedly spit on.

The two incidents are not comparable except the fact that being spit on is unacceptable as well.

 

[Shalamar]

from a previous post of mine

We will have agree to disagree. I prefer to assume that people do not intend bodily harm, unless shown otherwise. Acting like a loon and running around with a sign does not scream 'bodily harm' to me. Just someone acting like a loon.

 

[eeyore1954]

The TP people knew who she was, according to her. She was not hiding. They even talked about how to do" crowd control" on her before they grabbed her. This is what she said in an interview after.

She may be telling the truth.

Why would they know who she is other than she was someone with a disguise who later ran to the car.

 

[eeyore1954]

We will have agree to disagree. I prefer to assume that people do not intend bodily harm, unless shown otherwise. Acting like a loon and running around with a sign does not scream 'bodily harm' to me. Just someone acting like a loon.

I would agree up to the point she was at or leaning inside the car. Even then i would suspect she wasn't there with the intent of doing bodily harm but would not be sure enough to let her stay by the car.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Something that's being overlooked here. How did they know she did'nt have a gun or knife?

Because she had a sign in her hands.

If there are people going to these campaign events with no one paying attention to the candidates physical security, then something else is wrong here. The President is not the only office who needs protection from nut-jobs. If they are relying on campaign workers with signs to prevent a random kook with a gun, that's hard to believe.

However, now that I think about it, I went to a Patty Murray event and no security was present and she's had verbal threats on her life made.