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

[DavidJames]

Since Obama was brought up in comparison - So I guess that means the ones who brought down the evil liberal terrorist and potential assassin was a member of the Secret Service, no?

 

[eeyore1954]

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.

Having a sign in her hands would preclude her from having a weapon?

 

[johnny karate]

First of all, these people were security...

No, they weren't.

Nor have I said or implied even once that the person who put a foot on her shoulder/neck was in the right. There clearly was no need for him to do that. But then in moments like that, emotions, adrenaline and testosterone can run high. As far as I can see, no harm no foul.

To what extent do you condone violence against women? Let's say my wife or girlfriend is back-talking me, and "emotions, adrenaline and testosterone" begin to "run high"? Should I just give her a little smack on the mouth? Or should I push her to the ground and stomp on her to subdue her?

All of this would be done, of course, without any permanent injury. Because like those men in the video - who are clearly trained professionals with full knowledge that their actions would not lead to injury - I would perform such actions with perfect skill and precision.

After all, no harm no foul, right?

 

[BeAChooser]

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

How about you, SG, do you recognize Squeeky Fromme?

The crowd appeared to be a bunch of Paul supporters with their own signs.

You keep showing your dishonesty. The person who forced Valle away from the open window of Rand Paul's car was a grey suited fellow with no sign, who was clearly there for the protection of Rand Paul. The person who confronted Valle as she ran around the front of the car towards Rand Paul carried no sign and was clearly there for crowd control … i.e., security. And she clearly resisted that person's efforts to stop her, so much so that by the time the camera captured her on the ground and being *stomped* rolleyes, she was back in front of the door of the car that Rand Paul had exited. You can't deceive us, SG, because we have the video record of what actually took place to guide us.

The rest of your rant is really ludicrous. There was no crime they needed to hold the woman for.

That's your opinion but the laws on stalking, menace and assault clearly fit what she did. That being the case, security was justified in forceably subduing her.

There was no threat from waving a sign.

It is if you do it in someone's face. People have been beaten with signs. And the fact is that the people around Rand Paul had no way of knowing that a sign was all that Valle carried, or that the sign didn't have something along it's edge, like razor blades. The video proves Valle was behaving like a maniac and THAT is why they responded with force against her. You can keep regurgitating your claim she was no threat, but you will only show your extreme leftist political bias, SG.

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.

All people have to do is look at the video evidence we have of her behavior prior to being driven to the ground and subdued to see why those around Paul reacted to her the way they did. And to see that her own statements about what happened are dishonest.

She herself said "I think [Paul supporters] knew who I was from the past two weeks, me being in town." That indicates that she had seen by those accompanying Rand Paul, because she had been stalking the candidate. That's cause for their concern.

 

[johnny karate]

Since Obama was brought up in comparison - So I guess that means the ones who brought down the evil liberal terrorist and potential assassin was a member of the Secret Service, no?

Exactly. Random goons from the crowd partner up to overpower the dangerous threat of a sign-holding woman they both outweigh by 80 or so pounds, and we get comparisons to John Wilkes Booth.

Here's a question to all you claiming she posed a threat and needed to be subdued: Why is the person who justifiably subdued a potential threat being charged with a crime?

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
First of all, these people were security...

Yes, they were. The man who pushed Valle away from the car window was clearly security. The man who confronted Valle as she ran around the front of the car was clearly there for crowd control ... security.

Originally
To what extent do you condone violence against women?

LOL! I'm not on trial here, jk. Miss Valle is.

And why do you keep claiming the response of security had something to do with Valle being a woman? Valle was not dressed as a women. She was wearing a hoodie and had a wig over very short hair that could have easily have been interpreted as a way to disguise a man. And who says women cannot be threats, anyway? Remember Skweeky Fromme, who tried to kill Ford while dressed in a red outfit not unlike the color of the outfit that Valle chose to wear (see the photo I linked above)?

Let's say my wife or girlfriend is back-talking me, and "emotions, adrenaline and testosterone" begin to "run high"? Should I just give her a little smack on the mouth? Or should I push her to the ground and stomp on her to subdue her?

So DO YOU beat your wife, jk?

 

[BeAChooser]

Here's a question to all you claiming she posed a threat and needed to be subdued: Why is the person who justifiably subdued a potential threat being charged with a crime?

Because we live in an insane society influenced by liberal media.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, they were. The man who pushed Valle away from the car window was clearly security. The man who confronted Valle as she ran around the front of the car was clearly there for crowd control ... security.

The men who violently assaulted her: Not security.

The post of mine you were responding was specifically about these two men, and in your response you claimed they were security.

And why do you keep claiming the response of security had something to do with Valle being a woman?

Why do you keep claiming the two men who violently assaulted her were security? The clearly were not. Had they been actual trained security professionals who viewed this woman as a potential threat they probably would have been able to subdue her in a safe, professional manner.

Instead, they were just two thugs who decided to violently assault a woman.

Valle was not dressed as a women. She was wearing a hoodie and had a wig over very short hair that could have easily have been interpreted as a way to disguise a man.

From an earlier post:

Also, what was she wearing? Did her choice of attire somehow entice these men to push her to the ground and stomp on her?

And who says women cannot be threats, anyway? Remember Skweeky Fromme, who tried to kill Ford while dressed in a red outfit not unlike the color of the outfit that Valle chose to wear (see the photo I linked above)?

I'm not suggesting women can't be threats. I'm suggest yahoos from the crowd don't get to decide who's a threat or how to handle that threat.

So DO YOU beat your wife, jk?

Well, I was raised not to, and have always firmly believed a man should never put his hands (or feet) on a woman. But you've made some very intriguing arguments to the contrary...

 

[Brainster]

They should have put her in a room and pumped it full of Zyklon-B.

At last! The Godwin arguments are justified!

 

[BeAChooser]

The men who violently assaulted her: Not security.

Prove it. Prove they weren't asked to help with crowd control.

Why do you keep claiming the two men who violently assaulted her were security? The clearly were not.

Clearly? How do you know?

Had they been actual trained security professionals who viewed this woman as a potential threat they probably would have been able to subdue her in a safe, professional manner.

LOL! Have you ever actually watched how security "professionals" take down threats? They mob the threat, just as we see in the video. And often they even beat and kick the threat.

Instead, they were just two thugs who decided to violently assault a woman.

How do you know in the heat of the moment they even knew she was a woman and not just disguised as a woman? She was wearing mens cloths and had very short hair (underneath the wig disguise). There wasn't time for them to make that assessment.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Valle was not dressed as a women. She was wearing a hoodie and had a wig over very short hair that could have easily have been interpreted as a way to disguise a man.

Why do you roll your eyes? Did I say anything that wasn't absolutely true? She was not dressed as a woman. She was wearing men's clothes. She had a hoodie on to cover her face, over a wig that must have been intended to disguise her. And with as short of hair as she had, once the wig was pulled off (after which she was dragged to the ground), she could easily have been mistaken to be a man in the few seconds when this all occurred.

I'm not suggesting women can't be threats.

You seem to be. You keep acting as if this was all about her being a woman and therefore no danger to anyone.

I'm suggest yahoos from the crowd

You haven't proven these were yahoos or "from the crowd". Last I hear even the guy who put his foot on her was a volunteer who was there to help out with the event.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So DO YOU beat your wife, jk?

Well, I was raised not to, and have always firmly believed a man should never put his hands (or feet) on a woman.

Curious. You didn't actually answer the question.

And do you seriously believe in that "never" when the woman might be carrying a weapon and is acting strange around a prominent public figure? Should I conclude you would have been against anyone tackling Skweeky Fromme?

 

[johnny karate]

Prove it. Prove they weren't asked to help with crowd control.

Oh, BAC. You embarrass yourself. You know full well that here on a skeptic's forum the burden of proof is on the claimant. You claimed they were security. I say you are lying. Now it's up to you to prove your claim.

Clearly? How do you know?

Your claim, your burden.

LOL! Have you ever actually watched how security "professionals" take down threats? They mob the threat, just as we see in the video. And often they even beat and kick the threat.

Yes, usually in the instance of an imminent threat (i.e. brandishing a weapon). What's noteworthy about this particular incident is that the actual security professionals present did not "mob the threat" and in fact behaved in a manner that would indicate they did not perceive an imminent threat.

How do you know in the heat of the moment they even knew she was a woman and not just disguised as a woman? She was wearing mens cloths and had very short hair (underneath the wig disguise). There wasn't time for them to make that assessment.

How do you know these men aren't dangerous psychopaths who get their jollies from beating women, and seeing an opportunity to assault a woman, took it?

Imagination time is fun!

Why do you roll your eyes? Did I say anything that wasn't absolutely true? She was not dressed as a woman. She was wearing men's clothes. She had a hoodie on to cover her face, over a wig that must have been intended to disguise her. And with as short of hair as she had, once the wig was pulled off (after which she was dragged to the ground), she could easily have been mistaken to be a man in the few seconds when this all occurred.

Anything is possible. It's also possible these two men are raging misogynists seething with so much hatred for women that they fully intended to stomp this woman's head into pulp but managed to restrain themselves when they realized they were being videotaped.

But pointless conjecture aside, the fact remains that these two men violently assualted a woman. If if makes you feel better to pretend they were too stupid to determine her gender, you go right ahead.

You seem to be. You keep acting as if this was all about her being a woman and therefore no danger to anyone.

No, I keep acting as if random people don't get to decide who is and who isn't a threat and respond as they see fit.

You haven't proven these were yahoos or "from the crowd". Last I hear even the guy who put his foot on her was a volunteer who was there to help out with the event.

He's still a yahoo, and he was still in the crowd.

And do you seriously believe in that "never" when the woman might be carrying a weapon and is acting strange around a prominent public figure? Should I conclude you would have been against anyone tackling Skweeky Fromme?

People of all different genders, races, religions, and walks of life are potential threats at any given time. But for the overall safety of society, I'd prefer it if Bubba and Jim Bob would leave it to the trained professionals to make those determinations.

 

[johnny karate]

Oh, and regarding this bit of inane sophistry:

How do you know in the heat of the moment they even knew she was a woman and not just disguised as a woman? She was wearing mens cloths and had very short hair (underneath the wig disguise). There wasn't time for them to make that assessment.

Why do you roll your eyes? Did I say anything that wasn't absolutely true? She was not dressed as a woman. She was wearing men's clothes. She had a hoodie on to cover her face, over a wig that must have been intended to disguise her. And with as short of hair as she had, once the wig was pulled off (after which she was dragged to the ground), she could easily have been mistaken to be a man in the few seconds when this all occurred.

Here you go:

Tim Profitt, who faces assault charges in the incident, told WKYT-TV, Lexington, he recognized the protester and was concerned she meant to harm Paul, the Tea Party-backed Republican candidate in Kentucky's Nov. 2 U.S. Senate election.

"I think she was there for a reason," he said. "And that was hurt Rand Paul."

 

[thaiboxerken]

All people have to do is look at the video evidence we have of her behavior prior to being driven to the ground and subdued to see why those around Paul reacted to her the way they did. And to see that her own statements about what happened are dishonest.

Ok, that sounds reasonable. Where is this video?

 

[bookitty]

Um..whether they thought she was a man or a woman is irrelevant. She's short and weighs about 100 pounds. The guy who tackled her outweighs her by a huge margin and had her subdued on the ground before Profitt decided to school her with his foot.

 

[tyr_13]

Um..whether they thought she was a man or a woman is irrelevant. She's short and weighs about 100 pounds. The guy who tackled her outweighs her by a huge margin and had her subdued on the ground before Profitt decided to school her with his foot.

While I agree that what they did had little to no (I'm leaning towards no) justification, I can't agree that weight matters. It doesn't. A knife to the gut from an 100 pound woman kills a two-hundred seventy-five pound body builder just as dead. The 'bigger man' argument seems unfair to me.

Arguing that someone shouldn't respond to a perceived attack because the perceived attacker is small is just wrong. Not that it matters in this case, she obviously wasn't attacking.

 

[bookitty]

While I agree that what they did had little to no (I'm leaning towards no) justification, I can't agree that weight matters. It doesn't. A knife to the gut from an 100 pound woman kills a two-hundred seventy-five pound body builder just as dead. The 'bigger man' argument seems unfair to me.

Arguing that someone shouldn't respond to a perceived attack because the perceived attacker is small is just wrong. Not that it matters in this case, she obviously wasn't attacking.

Whoops, didn't make myself clear. She is small, the tackler is large. She was adequately subdued before Profitt stomped her. Even if she had been holding a knife, she was not a threat when she was on the ground.

 

[BeAChooser]

You claimed they were security.

And you claimed they are not. Prove it.

I say you are lying. Now it's up to you to prove your claim.

LOL! I can prove it using Valle's own words. She's on the record saying this:

I have been at a bunch of events before, the previous debate, and the Rand Paul campaign knows me and they have expressed their distaste for my work before. What happened last night was that about five minutes before Rand Paul's car arrived they identified me and my partner, Alex, who was with me. They surrounded me. There was five of them. They motioned to each other and got behind me. My partner Alex heard them say 'We are here to do crowd control we might have to take someone out.'


When Rand Paul's car arrived a couple of them stepped in front of me so I stepped off the curb to get around them to get back out front. At that point they started grabbing for me and I ran all the way around the car with them in pursuit. The footage is after I've run all the way around the car and I'm in front of the car and that is when they took me down. One or two people twisted my arms behind my back and took me down... It was about two-to-three seconds after that that another person stomped on my head. And I lay there for 20 seconds or so and my partner Alex came and got me up and that's the point where there is the media clip of me speaking.

"We are here to do crowd control." That's what she said her fellow MoveOn.orger said, jk. And what is "crowd control" other than a security job?

Besides, how can Rand Paul's organization *fire* the man unless he was there working for them with their knowledge? And how could they not have been security given how close they were to the candidate and given the fact that they were on the candidate's side of tape that had been strung to separate the crowd from the candidate? Just look at the video, jk. (You are eventually going to get around to doing that, aren't you? ) And one more fact indicating they were authorized *security* is that when the altercation did start, the police who were standing nearby, did not intervene. They waited until after it was over. The only reason I can see for them not intervening is that they recognized those people as legitimate security who could take care of the problem. See how logic works?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Clearly? How do you know?

Your claim, your burden.

No, in this case it's clearly your claim. You didn't just ask me to prove my claim, you said "the [sic] clearly were not" security. That more than simply a demand for me to prove something. That's you making a counter claim of fact. So prove they weren't involved in security. As you said, "You know full well that here on a skeptic's forum the burden of proof is on the claimant."

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
LOL! Have you ever actually watched how security "professionals" take down threats? They mob the threat, just as we see in the video. And often they even beat and kick the threat.

Yes, usually in the instance of an imminent threat (i.e. brandishing a weapon).

LOL! I can show you numerous examples to counter your claim. Here's one that's particularly appropriate. It involves a far left, short haired, highly persistant, activist woman with glasses (sound familiar?), carrying only a sign (sound familiar?), who was tackled by security "professionals" when she simply approached (sound familiar?) Senator McCain in a somewhat maniacal manner (sound familiar?). There is even a video of the incident at this link: http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk-elections/article/john-mccain-protester-tackled-video/19650180 . So, you don't know what you are talking about, jk. But then I think that's already clear to most.

What's noteworthy about this particular incident is that the actual security professionals present did not "mob the threat" and in fact behaved in a manner that would indicate they did not perceive an imminent threat.

Or alternatively, that just means they felt the other men who where there for "crowd control" (according to Valle) had the situation in hand.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
How do you know in the heat of the moment they even knew she was a woman and not just disguised as a woman? She was wearing mens cloths and had very short hair (underneath the wig disguise). There wasn't time for them to make that assessment.

How do you know these men aren't dangerous psychopaths who get their jollies from beating women, and seeing an opportunity to assault a woman, took it?

Everything I stated is fact or a reasonable deduction from the facts. Everything you just stated is outright libelous and not backed up by one shred of evidence.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Why do you roll your eyes? Did I say anything that wasn't absolutely true? She was not dressed as a woman. She was wearing men's clothes. She had a hoodie on to cover her face, over a wig that must have been intended to disguise her. And with as short of hair as she had, once the wig was pulled off (after which she was dragged to the ground), she could easily have been mistaken to be a man in the few seconds when this all occurred.

Anything is possible. It's also possible these two men are raging misogynists seething with so much hatred for women that they fully intended to stomp this woman's head into pulp but managed to restrain themselves when they realized they were being videotaped.

AGAIN, everything I stated is fact or a reasonable deduction from the facts. Everything you just stated is outright libelous and not backed up by one shred of evidence. You are giving skeptics a bad name, jk.

If if makes you feel better to pretend they were too stupid to determine her gender, you go right ahead.

It wasn't a matter of being stupid but time. The whole incident took only a few seconds and you have to admit (if you aren't too partisan) that Valle looks more than a little like a man without the wig (not that that really matters as far as the person being a potential threat given that person's behavior in the moment).

I keep acting as if random people don't get to decide who is and who isn't a threat and respond as they see fit.

Prove they were random people. It appears they were allowed to be inside a taped off area. So they weren't just members of the crowd. As Valle's associate said, they were "crowd control" doing what crowd control is supposed to do … keep wackos at bay.

He's still a yahoo, and he was still in the crowd.

There you go again with unfounded, libelous, character assassination as your only argument. And you have not proven they were part of the "crowd".

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And do you seriously believe in that "never" when the woman might be carrying a weapon and is acting strange around a prominent public figure? Should I conclude you would have been against anyone tackling Skweeky Fromme?

People of all different genders, races, religions, and walks of life are potential threats at any given time. But for the overall safety of society, I'd prefer it if Bubba and Jim Bob would leave it to the trained professionals to make those determinations.

So in other words, you didn't really mean "never".

Here are stop action images from the tape:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/10/stop-action-photo-sequence-loony-moveon.html

You can see that the sign was shoved as far into the car as Valle could do it without entering the car herself at one point. And it was done with reckless abandon for whatever injury doing that might cause to the occupants. It was plain and simple … assault.

But then that doesn't matter to you, does it, jk?

 

[BeAChooser]

Tim Profitt, who faces assault charges in the incident, told WKYT-TV, Lexington, he recognized the protester and was concerned she meant to harm Paul, the Tea Party-backed Republican candidate in Kentucky's Nov. 2 U.S. Senate election.

Ok, jk, you've proven that the man who *stomped* rolleyes on Valle knew she was a woman. Now prove that those who actually forced her to the ground knew this.

And thanks for offering further evidence that Valle had been stalking Rand Paul, giving security a good reason to be wary of her.

 

[BeAChooser]

Ok, that sounds reasonable. Where is this video?

Duh ... read the rest of the thread and you can't help but encounter the link to it.

 

[T.A.M.]

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?

the word "brown shirt" is a reference to the members of the Nazi party. It is not so much the definition, or a comment on the right or wrong of the actions (which were excessive and wrong) but on the unneeded, and clearly inflammatory reference that these people were acting like Nazis.

The word "bullies" would have been sufficient, without the unneeded inflammatory component.

TAM