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

[BeAChooser]

Um..whether they thought she was a man or a woman is irrelevant. She's short and weighs about 100 pounds.

I'm glad you agree her gender is irrelevant. But so is size. A security risk is a security risk because a short, 100 pound person can just as easily be carrying a weapon as a 300 pound NFL center. Skweeky Fromme weighed less than 100 pounds. Sara Jane Moore, who 17 days after Skweeky's attempt also tried to kill President Ford with a gun, was a relatively small woman too. For that matter, Sirhan Sirhan only weighed 120 lbs.

 

[T.A.M.]

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 am not sure I agree here. We are talking about a charged, temper flaring event, with one of the most controversial political figures of these elections. For every wingnut that supports him, there is probably a wingnut who can't stand him.

Here is what we know.

1. She was known to the RP people.
2. She was wearing a disguise.
3. Prior to her pinning to the ground, she had lunged out at, and made contact with the vehicle of Rand Paul, the controversial figure I discussed above.
4. She made a second attempt to get near him, this time without the protection of the vehicle.

Now the above, in my opinion, is justification for HIS SECURITY DETAIL to RESTRAIN HER so she could not POTENTIALLY do harm to the CANDIDATE.

Here is what is up for opinion, interpretation, and argument (IMO).

1. Were the people who restrained and assaulted her his SECURITY PEOPLE?
2. Was the force used excessive when they forced her to the ground?
3. Was the force used excessive when the RP volunteer FORCEFULLY pushed down on her shoulder, causing a head injury and likely considerable pain.
4. Was the response from RP and his people sufficient reparation for what was done.

Now, in my opinion, in light of the facts in the first section, I think restraining her without pinning her would have been the BEST course of action. I feel TWO large men forcing her to the ground, into a prone position, was somewhat excessive. I feel the shoulder "stomp" was VERY EXCESSIVE.

TAM

 

[BeAChooser]

Even if she had been holding a knife, she was not a threat when she was on the ground.

Noone is really disagreeing with that. But some seem to be disagreeing with the notion that she was a threat when she shoved her sign in the car and later ran around the front of the car towards the candidate's location. What do you think about that, bookitty?

 

[bookitty]

Noone is really disagreeing with that. But some seem to be disagreeing with the notion that she was a threat when she shoved her sign in the car and later ran around the front of the car towards the candidate's location. What do you think about that, bookitty?

As I said earlier, I don't see a threat with the sign in the car. There's a crush of people and a large sign. She turns it around, part of it goes in the window. It doesn't look intentional and shoving it doesn't match up with other Move On protests. As the repub-blogs gleefully point out, this woman is a professional activist which means she has a script to follow. Attacking with a sign is not part of that script.

When she is running around the car we see only a brief glimpse of her (noticeable mostly because she is wearing red.) It is impossible to tell if there are people behind her that were not close enough to be lit by the car headlights. She was younger and faster, she may have just been ahead of them. Or not. There simply isn't enough evidence to tell one way or the other.

What I do know is that these men caught her almost immediately after that. One wrestled her to the ground, and once she was subdued, the other purposefully stepped on her.

We also know that the guy who stepped on her knew who she was, had already decided that she was trouble and had targeted her. We know that he thinks there is nothing wrong with his behavior. Stepping on a subdued opponent is something he condones, even after the fact.

I am satisfied that all the facts are known? No. As this goes through the courts, other details may emerge but I seriously doubt that any justification will be found for stomping on a person after they have been rendered harmless.

 

[BeAChooser]

She turns it around, part of it goes in the window. It doesn't look intentional and shoving it doesn't match up with other Move On protests.

Anyone looking at the video or the stop action images I linked in a post above is going to see that you are being patently dishonest in your description of the incident. What she did was CLEARLY intentional and more than "part" of the sign went inside the car. And "shoving it" perfectly describes what she was doing with the sign.

As the repub-blogs gleefully point out, this woman is a professional activist which means she has a script to follow. Attacking with a sign is not part of that script.

By all means, link us to the MoveOn "script".

It is impossible to tell if there are people behind her that were not close enough to be lit by the car headlights.

False. You can clearly see her come around the far corner of the car and run across the front of the car, where she is intercepted by a man who appears to be with crowd control since he's on the car side of tape keeping journalists at bay. And you clearly see that noone is chasing her like she claimed. And she tries to evade the man and get around him. Which is why she is eventually stopped on the near side of the car in front of the car door that Rand Paul exited the car.

She was younger and faster, she may have just been ahead of them.

LOL! Dig deep in your desperation to paint a image that wasn't there.

We know that he thinks there is nothing wrong with his behavior.

Wrong. He publically apologized to Valle for stepping on her. http://www.sunherald.com/2010/10/26/2584900/rand-paul-supporter-apologize.html He also would like her to apologize for her behavior. But THAT is something we certainly won't see because leftist fanatics like her will NEVER apologize for anything they do. So go ahead, bookitty, keep holding her up as an icon for your movement. I think you'll be surprised at the outcome of any court case.

 

[bookitty]

Wrong. He publically apologized to Valle for stepping on her. http://www.sunherald.com/2010/10/26/2584900/rand-paul-supporter-apologize.html He also would like her to apologize for her behavior. But THAT is something we certainly won't see because leftist fanatics like her will NEVER apologize for anything they do. So go ahead, bookitty, keep holding her up as an icon for your movement. I think you'll be surprised at the outcome of any court case.

Icon? Movement? Where did I say anything that implies such a thing?

We are both looking at the same tape and getting a different view. With the running around the car shot, you seem to think that a two-second glimpse is enough to judge what everyone in the vicinity is doing. I do not. There are multiple ways of looking at it, so obviously, this is one for the courts.

Both factions have professional activist with a specific agenda. As I prefer my political involvement to happen in the voting booth, I have no idea what the specific tactics might be.

In the link you provide there is no apology, only this: 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.

"It wasn't so bad." and "It's the fault of the police." are not an apology. Neither is "I am sorry it came to that."

If you think that Profitt is owed an apology, I can only assume you think he was justified in stepping on Lauren Valle after she had been subdued. We will have to agree to disagree on this. I think that it was excessive. There is no justification for harming a person who is no threat and can not defend themselves.

 

[BeAChooser]

We are both looking at the same tape and getting a different view.

No, you are clearly distorting what the tape shows.

Her attempt to force the sign inside the car was clearly intentional.

And more than "part" of the sign was shoved into the car by her.

There are multiple ways of looking at it, so obviously, this is one for the courts.

Well unless there are more videos that haven't surfaced yet, the video evidence is only going to argue against her version of what happened.

In the link you provide there is no apology

Well, try this one:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/10/rand-pauls-stomper-is-donor-to.html

Tim Profitt told the Associated Press this afternoon that he didn’t mean to hurt Lauren Valle when he and others knocked her to the ground and Profitt tromped on her head.

“I’m sorry that it came to that, and I apologize if it appeared overly forceful, but I was concerned about Rand’s safety,” Profitt told the AP.

If you think that Profitt is owed an apology

I didn't say that. What I said is that she was asked to apologize for her behavior, and that I can almost guarantee we will not see, even if she were convicted of stalking, menace and assault and facing the judge's wraith.

There is no justification for harming a person who is no threat and can not defend themselves.

But was there really harm? That hasn't been proven yet, only claimed by her side. And they've already been proven to be liars.

 

[bookitty]

Well, try this one:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/10/rand-pauls-stomper-is-donor-to.html




I didn't say that. What I said is that she was asked to apologize for her behavior, and that I can almost guarantee we will not see, even if she were convicted of stalking, menace and assault and facing the judge's wraith.

But was there really harm? That hasn't been proven yet, only claimed by her side. And they've already been proven to be liars.

Are you now suggesting that political protesters apologize for...protesting?

“I’m sorry that it came to that, and I apologize if it appeared overly forceful, but I was concerned about Rand’s safety.” That is not an apology. That is justification. Interestingly enough, sentences like the first two are often uttered by wife-beaters. "I'm sorry the situation got out of control, and now it looks like I got too rough." that sort of thing.

Of course, you don't think she was injured. Stepping forcefully on a restrained 100 pound person is A-Ok within certain parameters. They can sustain x-amount of injury and they need to have been deemed a threat by a person who is neither trained in security nor hired to provide it.

Also, you seemed to have missed a specific question. Please show me where I "held Lauren Valle up as an icon" of my movement. I would appreciate it if you would define this movement but am not holding my breath.

 

[johnny karate]

And you claimed they are not. Prove it.

You're a riot. Do you have any other negatives you'd like me to prove because you can't provide evidence of your claims?

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

"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?

First, you need to demonstrate where in Valle's statement she specifically refers to Tim Profitt and his accomplice as "crowd control". It's never made clear, and since there were actual security professionals present, she could very easily have been referring to them.

After that, you need to explain while you're suddenly willing to accept the unsubstantiated hearsay of someone you've gone to great lengths to paint as a liar.

Besides, how can Rand Paul's organization *fire* the man unless he was there working for them with their knowledge?

He was a volunteer who, according to news reports about the incident, served in no official or specific capacity. Your dubious claim that he was working security remains unsubstantiated.

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?

Neither the police nor the so-called "candidate's tape" are visible in the video, and furthermore Profitt and his accomplice are surrounded by people holding Rand Paul signs during the incident. Some might even call that a "crowd". Your dubious claim that they were working security remains unsubstantiated.

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."

You must be joking. You said "They were security". I responded "No, they were not security". I made a counter claim. The original claim is still yours, and remains unsubstantiated.

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.

The term you used was "mob the threat". You also mentioned "beating" and "kicking". That video showed one security guard subduing a protestor, with a notable absence of both beating and kicking.

Be careful sliding those goal posts around. We just had the floors refinished.

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

Or alternatively, Tim Profitt and his accomplice are violent thugs who enjoy assaulting women.

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.

Everything you stated was wrong. Tim Profitt was quite aware that the person he wrestled to the ground and stomped on was a woman. Considering that fact, my specualation is very much valid.

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.

AGAIN, you were wrong. Tim Profitt was quite aware that the person he wrestled to the ground and stomped on was a woman.

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'm not sure if I mentioned this, but you were wrong. Tim Profitt was quite aware that the person he wrestled to the ground and stomped on was a woman.

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.

There is no "taped off area" visible in the video, and Profitt and his accomplice are surrounded by other Rand Paul supporters. There is no evidence they were there serving any official or specific function. Thus "random".

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?

Does it matter to you? You claim to have photographic evidence of a crime taking place. Have you forwarded this startling evidence to the proper authorities?

Hyperbolic nonsense aside, your condonations of violence against women are becoming quite tedious.

 

[johnny karate]

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.

Would you like me to dance a jig while I'm at it?

I have proven the guy being charged with assault knew he was assaulting a woman (despite her clever disguise), thus utterly dismantling a rather droning bit of your sophistry.

I don't feel the need to follow you down the rabbit-hole any farther.

 

[BeAChooser]

Are you now suggesting that political protesters apologize for...protesting?

No, I'm suggesting she apologize to the occupants of Rand Paul's car who she might have injured with her antics, and to those who tried to stop her from running up to Rand Paul the second time. It might surprise you to learn that security people can be injured when they have to wrestle an out of control woman, even if she's only 100 lbs, to the ground. Who knows, they could even hurt their backs. So she should apologize for putting them in the situation of having to bodily restrain her. Seems fair to me. But like I said, that will happen when pigs fly.

Interestingly enough, sentences like the first two are often uttered by wife-beaters.

So tell me, do you beat your wife/husband too?

Of course, you don't think she was injured.

It's not "of course". It's just that she can be seen smiling in the video when she's struggling with the "crowd control". It's just that immediately after the incident she was up talking to a TV crew and smiling. It's just that there is no hard evidence that she was injured other than a CLAIM by her (a proven liar) and MoveOn.Org, the organization that hired a proven liar. Like I said before, if they can come forward with a hospital document saying "concussion" or "contusion" or "strain", I'll be happy to accept that she was injured in the scuffle that she caused. But then, as I said, the question is whether than injury occured when she was forced to the ground (a legitimate action) or when she was stepped on (not so legitimate).

Please show me where I "held Lauren Valle up as an icon" of my movement.

Ok, I simply misinterpreted your actions on this thread. Just like you seem to be misinterpreting the actions of both Valle and the security people in the incident.

 

[bookitty]

No, I'm suggesting she apologize to the occupants of Rand Paul's car who she might have injured with her antics, and to those who tried to stop her from running up to Rand Paul the second time. It might surprise you to learn that security people can be injured when they have to wrestle an out of control woman, even if she's only 100 lbs, to the ground. Who knows, they could even hurt their backs. So she should apologize for putting them in the situation of having to bodily restrain her. Seems fair to me. But like I said, that will happen when pigs fly.

Has anyone in the car complained about being injured? Have they asked for an apology? Not that I've heard. I've only heard Proffit say that she should apologize to him.

The "second time" they restrained her was when they tackled her, pulled her to the ground and stepped on her. I'm not sure Gandhi would be able to apologize for that.

It's not "of course". It's just that she can be seen smiling in the video when she's struggling with the "crowd control". It's just that immediately after the incident she was up talking to a TV crew and smiling. It's just that there is no hard evidence that she was injured other than a CLAIM by her (a proven liar) and MoveOn.Org, the organization that hired a proven liar. Like I said before, if they can come forward with a hospital document saying "concussion" or "contusion" or "strain", I'll be happy to accept that she was injured in the scuffle that she caused. But then, as I said, the question is whether than injury occured when she was forced to the ground (a legitimate action) or when she was stepped on (not so legitimate).

Have you ever had a concussion? One of the symptoms is irrational behavior.

Ok, I simply misinterpreted your actions on this thread. Just like you seem to be misinterpreting the actions of both Valle and the security people in the incident.

They weren't security people. They were private citizens who got all hopped up on this "us vs. them" B.S. that is becoming far too common. You're doing it too, assuming that I was on "their" side because in the past I have shown an opinion that is more liberal. This makes me some sort of enemy and referring to my opinion is supposed to be an insult. You even used the phrase "your movement" as an insult.

For the record, I vote as a fiscally conservative democrat. In the past, I've voted for republicans if I thought they were the right person for the job. I've even voted for pro-life republicans because I am not a one issue voter and, outside of that, they had the qualifications needed at that time. If you lived in CA, we probably would have voted for some of the same people, sometimes. Hell, I was considering McCain before he went all partisan.

What happened to Lauren Valle was an excess of force that was brought on by this atmosphere of dread and hyperbole. Both sides are guilty of this. Olberman as much as Limbaugh. I don't understand why every one is buying it. Tea-baggers aren't brutal beasts, liberal activists aren't terrorists. The ones on the news are just the extremists that people use when they are painting with a broad brush.

Neither Lauren Valle nor Tim Profit were able to see past their cause and they both acted poorly. The difference is that Proffit assaulted a helpless person. You can not justify his action. She was, at that point, harmless. Even if she deserved punishment for her actions, we have laws to address that and don't need to rely on the actions of vigilantes.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

I've seen all the video links in the thread and have yet to see what it is you think contradicts the woman's statements.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

“I’m sorry that it came to that, and I apologize if it appeared overly forceful, but I was concerned about Rand’s safety.” That is not an apology. That is justification. Interestingly enough, sentences like the first two are often uttered by wife-beaters. "I'm sorry the situation got out of control, and now it looks like I got too rough." that sort of thing.

No crap. It is the fake apology. When I first read it I was going to do the domestic violence analogy, but you beat me to it.

 

[BeAChooser]

You're a riot.

So are you. It's a riot watching you make claim after claim that turn out to be false. It's a riot watching you trying to make a paid agitator a *hero*. It's a riot watching you make libelous smears against people in response to facts and sound logic by me.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
LOL! I can prove it using Valle's own words. She's on the record saying this: "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?

First, you need to demonstrate where in Valle's statement she specifically refers to Tim Profitt and his accomplice as "crowd control".

It's also a riot listening to you spin and spin and spin, rather than simply acknowledge that Valle herself identified the people wearing those Rand Paul tshirts (like Profitt was) as being there to provide "crowd control". She then said when Rand Paul's car approached, "they" "started grabbing me" and she ran around the car with "them" "in pursuit". When she gets around to the front of the car, she says "that is when" "they" "took me down". Clearly, all those "they"s and "them"s referred to the same group she earlier identified as being there for "crowd control", i.e., security. You just need to learn to read English.

After that, you need to explain while you're suddenly willing to accept the unsubstantiated hearsay of someone you've gone to great lengths to paint as a liar.

LOL! I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt in this instance, even though in other cases she lied. Because afterall, why would she lie except to make herself look even more innocent than she really was? She never once mentioned a description that could be interpreted as "professional" security. It was her choice.

He was a volunteer who, according to news reports about the incident, served in no official or specific capacity.

A volunteer yes, but you haven't provided anything to substantiate he had no "official" or "specific" capacity. Volunteers can still be assigned duties, jk. Including "crowd control".

Neither the police nor the so-called "candidate's tape" are visible in the video

The fact that police were in the area is mentioned in various news articles. In fact, one account states that someone pointed out Valle to policemen before the scuffle, expressing concern about her, but they didn't do anything. So they were clearly in the immediate area and probably had eyes on her even if they had decided not to detain her earlier. And other accounts clearly indicate that police showed up immediately after she was subdued.

As for the tape, you are simply wrong. Take another look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yiLeud-sxrM at about 1:13 - 1:20 minutes and you will see that people were clearly standing behind yellow tape. There definitely were efforts to keep the crowd back and the red suited wacko tried to circumvent those efforts.

furthermore Profitt and his accomplice are surrounded by people holding Rand Paul signs during the incident.

What video shows Profitt standing in a crowd of people with signs? Link and cite the time to look.

I responded "No, they were not security". I made a counter claim. The original claim is still yours, and remains unsubstantiated.

False. I quoted Valle herself indicating those people were there for "crowd control". Now you stated as fact that they had not role in that. Well, prove it. Their actions certainly seem to be in line with controlling the crowd.

That video showed one security guard subduing a protestor

Yes, in almost the same way Valle was subdued … except even more forcefully. And didn't you enjoy how similar her situation was to that of Valle's … her looks, the sign, her intent?

Or alternatively, Tim Profitt and his accomplice are violent thugs who enjoy assaulting women.

There you go making totally unsubstantiated, libelous statements. You should be more careful about that.

Everything you stated was wrong.

Everything? So you are claiming she wasn't wearing mens cloths and didn't have very short hair underneath a wig disguise?

Tim Profitt was quite aware that the person he wrestled to the ground

There you go lying again. Tim Profitt didn't wrestle the woman to the ground. Someone else did that. He only helped hold the woman down with his foot once she was down.

Tim Profitt was quite aware that the person he wrestled to the ground and stomped on was a woman.

Again, you are wrong. Tim Profitt didn't wrestle the woman to the ground. The video clearly shows someone else did that.

Tim Profitt was quite aware that the person he wrestled to the ground

Gee, do you think that repeating that three times is going to change the fact that Time Profitt didn't wrestle anyone to the ground?

There is no "taped off area" visible in the video

You are wrong. As I proved with a link and time reference above.

There is no evidence they were there serving any official or specific function.

Other than the fact that they were on the Rand Paul side of the taped off area and allowed in close proximity to Rand Paul himself. Other that Valle herself said they were performing "crowd control". Other than the fact Profitt was *fired* (which suggests he did have some official capacity at the event).

Does it matter to you? You claim to have photographic evidence of a crime taking place. Have you forwarded this startling evidence to the proper authorities?

LOL! I love it when someone goes to that argument. It almost always means they know they've lost the argument. Really, jk, do you think the authorities are unaware of the video showing Valle's actions prior to her being taken down and *stomped* rolleyes? Seriously, bk, you can't possibly think they aren't.

Hyperbolic nonsense aside, your condonations of violence against women are becoming quite tedious.

Speaking of hyperbole.

 

[BeAChooser]

Has anyone in the car complained about being injured?

Does injury have to occur for assault to have occurred? No.

Have they asked for an apology?

I think they are simply choosing to ignore her. And not get distracted by her, and off topic in the campaign, which I'm sure was precisely her intent.

Have you ever had a concussion? One of the symptoms is irrational behavior.

Then perhaps she suffered a concussion well before the incident ever occurred. Because the video shows she sure was acting irrational.

They weren't security people.

You folks keep claiming that, but Valle even said they were there for "crowd control". And that's just another way of saying security.

This makes me some sort of enemy

LOL! Obama formally declared people like me "the enemy" in a recent speech. So don't be surprised if people like me start to view the other side of the political aisle in a similar manner.

For the record, I vote as a fiscally conservative democrat.

Yet, here you are defending a far left radical who I wager is NOT a fiscal conservative. Hmmmmm.

Hell, I was considering McCain before he went all partisan.

And Obama didn't.

What happened to Lauren Valle was an excess of force that was brought on by this atmosphere of dread and hyperbole.

What happened to Lauren Valle was brought on by the actions of Lauren Valle.

liberal activists aren't terrorists.

Actually, Lauren Valle might be considered one. She was even arrested by the New Orleans Joint Terrorism Taskforce and charged with a felony in May.

Neither Lauren Valle nor Tim Profit were able to see past their cause and they both acted poorly.

You know next to nothing about Tim Profitt and his "cause". We know quite a bit about Lauren Valle and her "causes".

The difference is that Proffit assaulted a helpless person.

Lauren Valle assaulted the people inside Rand Paul's car. And she assaulted those she tried to get past when she ran around the car towards Rand Paul. The real difference is that Tim Profitt was just an ordinary citizen like you and I, paid by noone to be at that political event. Valle was an EMPLOYEE of MoveOn.org, paid to disrupt that political event.

You can not justify his action.

On the contrary, I have, quite successfully.

She was, at that point, harmless.

Up to the point Profitt put his foot on her shoulder, she was still struggling. That's clearly seen in the video. Therefore she was still a potential threat.

Even if she deserved punishment for her actions, we have laws to address that and don't need to rely on the actions of vigilantes.

But first they had to stop her. What liberals need to learn is once you start down this road, don't expect the other side to carefully measure out the response. People are fallable. The events happen too quickly for much thought to take place. We all do the best we can in such circumstance. So if a trouble maker gets roughed up a little more than you would like, C'est la vie.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Well she had both hands on the sign. Should they worry she was trained to shoot with her feet?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Oh my. Welcome to topsy turvy world.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

She was actually adequately subdued before they forced her down on the ground.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

The context I had in mind was the insidious nature of when the thugs backing Hitler came into existence. Have you ever seen the movie, "Swing Kids? It was really good.

I'd be happy to talk about my observations about this incident without reference to Hitler if I knew what else it was analogous to. The McCarthy era had some of the same components, but I'm not familiar with any violent attacks on perceived 'commies' at the time. Maybe attacks happened, but the era is known for blacklisting, not attacks.

And certainly the Aryan Nations incited their members to go out beating up people they perceived as a problem. But that was not a widespread movement.

This current trend is associated with a national political movement. I'm not saying we are on some unavoidable slide into Nazism. Nothing even close. But at what point should we say this political movement is on that insidious path of self righteousness that gives people the perceived license to physically attack others?

From my point of view, there are a number of people in this TeaParty that are inciting this kind of response. They are imagining their freedom and the country are threatened and it's OK to use violent means to respond.

If you are watching what is going on here, and it would seem you are, then what do you make of the Open Carry folks showing up at political rallies with guns in view, Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment remedies" and campaign ads calling undocumented immigrants a physical threat to your family, and, Glenn Beck's nightly raving to buy gold and pack some food for the coming fight to take back the country?

My concern is this is a national movement. It's political, it's national and it is feeding off itself. The actors in this drama share fear stories via the Net and the news media is gladly selling stories about it. There's much more here than some isolated incident of bullying.


We'll see what happens after the election.