[subego]

The Plum Line - Woman attacked by Rand Paul supporters has concussion, sprained arm, MoveOn says

I want people's opinions on this. Mr. Stompy is obviously way out of line (and is immediately stopped), but this article, as well as others, seem to indicate this is being viewed as all the Rand Paul supporters involved being out of line.

I don't see it. Show me what I'm missing.

[besson3c]

Not to sound like I'm making a mockery of your interest in this story, but I have to ask: show me why I should care who was out of line?

[subego]

Because I asked you to.

Seriously. That's why. In trying to view things as objectively as possible, it appears to me X happened. Y is what's being reported.

I want to know whose objectivity meter needs a readjustment.

[The Final Dakar]

One word: Sensationalism.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

The Plum Line - Woman attacked by Rand Paul supporters has concussion, sprained arm, MoveOn says

I want people's opinions on this. Mr. Stompy is obviously way out of line (and is immediately stopped), but this article, as well as others, seem to indicate this is being viewed as all the Rand Paul supporters involved being out of line.

I don't see it. Show me what I'm missing.

I honestly don't see where the article you linked to implies that all the Rand Paul supporters in attendance were out of line. Maybe the author could have written "some" Rand Paul supporters, but in the absence of "some" I don't assume "all." Some (anywhere from two up to and including all) is implicit in the use of the plural case unless a more explicit descriptor is added.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Because I asked you to.

Seriously. That's why. In trying to view things as objectively as possible, it appears to me X happened. Y is what's being reported.

I want to know whose objectivity meter needs a readjustment.

How can we be objective given these choices? Either we trust what is reported or we trust our gut feeling, not really knowing what happened since we weren't there.

[ort888]

In before "the entire attack was a liberal setup".

[olePigeon]

"...one of the men holding Lauren Valle down was wearing a 'Don't Tread On Me' button."

Hah.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How can we be objective given these choices? Either we trust what is reported or we trust our gut feeling, not really knowing what happened since we weren't there.

I don't think the video is as good as being there, but it seems to me there's enough there to assess some probabilities.

[Snow-i]

Honestly? Objectively?

That woman is incredibly stupid. Obviously trying to make headlines, garner attention etc by physically assaulting a political candidate with a mob of his supporters there.

The one that stepped on her head attempting to inflict harm? He needs to go to jail for battery. Immediately and without collecting $200 - she was already down and being restrained. That said, there's no way she has a concussion. I also doubt her arm or wrist or whatever is anything but a little sore.

The others that you can hear saying "no no, don't do that" to said suspect were acting reasonably and the ones trying to prevent her from reaching the candidate did as well. It wasn't unreasonable to take her to the ground and hold her while instructing others to contact the police for assistance given what could have happened with a huge mob of people there and her attempt to physically reach Mr Paul.

[subego]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I honestly don't see where the article you linked to implies that all the Rand Paul supporters in attendance were out of line. Maybe the author could have written "some" Rand Paul supporters, but in the absence of "some" I don't assume "all." Some (anywhere from two up to and including all) is implicit in the use of the plural case unless a more explicit descriptor is added.

Yeah, sorry. I should have said "involved in the incident" rather than just "involved".

To me, it appears she is "attacked" by only one supporter. The rest appear to be trying to restrain her. The article says she was attacked by supporters. Since I only see one, I have to assume that when the author uses a plural, he's referring to the people who were trying to restrain her, which appears to be all of those directly involved.

I'm a little rushed. Does that make sense?

[OAW]

Well here's my 2 cents on the situation based on what the video shows ....

A. It's clear that at least three men were manhandling the woman from MoveOn.org who's "offense" was approaching Rand Paul with a sign.

B. 2 separate men stomped the woman. One on the legs ... another literally stood on her head. Clearly these two uh ... "individuals" have a serious lack of home training. Putting your hands on a woman? Seriously?

C. A different man said "No no no no!" to the men attacking the woman. A different woman can be heard saying something to the effect of "You've got to be kidding me!" as she seemingly tried to intervene. She ended up stepping on the MoveOn.org woman too but it appears to have been accidental as she tried to get the two attackers to back off.

D. All of this went down literally within several feet of Rand Paul. Interestingly enough, he didn't appear to have anything to say. We definitely don't hear him telling his supporters to leave the woman alone or anything.

The initial statement from the Rand Paul campaign last night said the following:

We understand that there was an altercation outside of the debate between supporters of both sides and that is incredibly unfortunate. Violence of any kind has no place in our civil discourse and we urge supporters on all sides to be civil to one another as tensions rise heading toward this very important election. We are relieved to hear that the woman in question was not injured.

Now IMO ... I found this statement to be rather tepid. First of all let's go here ....

altercation - n.

1. a noisy argument or disagreement, especially in public.

2. a noisy heated angry dispute; also : noisy controversy

This was no "altercation". The woman didn't say a word to these "individuals". She did not argue with them. She did not physically confront them. These men physically attacked her ... for approaching Rand Paul with a sign. Period.

Furthermore, what's this "on all sides" comment about? There was no violence coming from the woman's side. At all.

Then on Tuesday morning on Fox News Mr. Paul had this to say ...

Originally Posted by Rand Paul

We want everybody to be civil. We want this campaign to be about issues. I will tell you that when we arrived there was enormous passion on both sides. It really was something where you walk into a haze of lights flashing, people yelling and screaming, bumping up. And there was a bit of a crowd control problem. I don't want anybody though to be involved in things that aren't civil. I think this should always be about the issues. And it is an unusual situation to have so many people so passionate on both sides jockeying back and forth. And it wasn't something that I liked or anybody liked about that situation. So I hope in the future it is going to be better.

So Mr. Paul characterizes the incident as people being "uncivil" and a "crowd control" problem. Statement #2 that doesn't seem to capture the seriousness of the incident. He could have just as easily been talking about two crowds of people getting into a shouting matching with this one here.

And then finally today, after the criticism continued to mount over the Rand Paul campaign's failure to unequivocally condemn this violent attack we get the following statement:

The Paul for Senate campaign is extremely disappointed in, and condemns the actions of a supporter last night outside the KET debate. Whatever the perceived provocation, any level of aggression or violence is deplorable, and will not be tolerated by our campaign. The Paul campaign has disassociated itself from the volunteer who took part in this incident, and once again urges all activists -- on both sides -- to remember that their political passions should never manifest themselves in physical altercations of any kind.

Ok ... well that's better. But that should be "volunteerS". Plural. Because it wasn't just one guy. And if they have disassociated this volunteer from the campaign then that means they know who he is. Clearly they should have reported this individual to the police. Something tells me though that they didn't seeing as how they make no mention of doing so in this statement. Now that would have been an unequivocal statement for sure. But instead ... they roll with this "on both sides" comment again. Which basically implies that there was physical violence from the victim coming their direction. And that simply was not the case.

We'll see how it all plays out ...

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

D. All of this went down literally within several feet of Rand Paul. Interestingly enough, he didn't appear to have anything to say. We definitely don't hear him telling his supporters to leave the woman alone or anything.

I'll answer more thoroughly when I get back, but I just had to respond to this.

You find it "interesting" that a controversial political candidate hears yelling, screaming, and "get the cops!", but doesn't approach the source of the commotion?

Really?

Really?

[Snow-i]

I only saw one person who acted inappropriately. For that he should be charged. He did immediately back off when more reasonable heads told him to.

OAW, do you consider her restraint to be unreasonable?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I honestly don't see where the article you linked to implies that all the Rand Paul supporters in attendance were out of line. Maybe the author could have written "some" Rand Paul supporters, but in the absence of "some" I don't assume "all." Some (anywhere from two up to and including all) is implicit in the use of the plural case unless a more explicit descriptor is added.

Well, the title of the youtube video is "More video of Rand Paul Thugs Stomping Democratic Woman" which is to say the least, very strong language.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'll answer more thoroughly when I get back, but I just had to respond to this.

You find it "interesting" that a controversial political candidate hears yelling, screaming, and "get the cops!", but doesn't approach the source of the commotion?

Really?

Really?

Yes .... really. But I should point out that what I said was that he didn't have anything to SAY. We don't hear him TELLING his supporters to leave her alone. You, OTOH, misconstrued that into APPROACH. There's a considerable difference.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I only saw one person who acted inappropriately. For that he should be charged. He did immediately back off when more reasonable heads told him to.

OAW, do you consider her restraint to be unreasonable?

Absolutely. The bigger question is .... do you not? And if so, why not?

OAW

[andi*pandi]

She was being manhandled before the stomping, and was pushed to the ground by several people. Once there she curled up and was passive. The guy stood on her and I heard a crack.

Was it a publicity stunt gone awry? sure. I won't paint all Paul supporters with the same brush, but there was more than one offender.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The one that stepped on her head attempting to inflict harm? He needs to go to jail for battery.

I'm also pretty sure the use of foot to head can be considered assault with a deadly weapon.

[OAW]

Exactly. There were SEVERAL Paul supporters involved. But it would be unfair to characterize that as ALL Paul supporters. What troubles me as much as the unprovoked violence against a female were the half-assed statements issued by Mr. Paul and the Paul campaign.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Absolutely. The bigger question is .... do you not? And if so, why not?

OAW

According to the police she was a contractor hired by MoveOn.org to attend events such as this and approach political adversaries of MoveOn with a "Republicore" sign to get pictures with them side by side. This approach obviously has some serious ethical concerns as well as a disregard for the safety of those attending the events as well as the safety of the candidates, not to mention the contractor they hired. I don't think its unreasonable to restrain a person that is rapidly approaching (pushing through the crowd, etc etc) a political candidate in that sort of setting. That said, its unfortunate that people when in mob form in large numbers tend to get more violent than they otherwise would. Mr Stompy should be charged - the others acted reasonably.

MoveOn.org put their political agenda above the safety of not only Rand Paul or his supporters, but of the contractors they hire for these publicity stunts. I think MoveOn got exactly what they wanted with this incident, and its a damn shame that they literally hire people to do their dirty work.



So yes, her restraint was reasonable. The step on the head once she became submissive? Not at all.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Exactly. There were SEVERAL Paul supporters involved. But it would be unfair to characterize that as ALL Paul supporters. What troubles me as much as the unprovoked violence against a female were the half-assed statements issued by Mr. Paul and the Paul campaign.

OAW

It was hardly unprovoked OAW.

[OAW]

Well there is "restraint". And then there is "restraint".

Physically blocking her from being able to reach Mr. Paul would have been one thing. Physically manhandling her to the ground for simply approaching Mr. Paul with a sign is something else altogether. Especially when these uh ... "individuals" are NOT trained security for Mr. Paul. You do realize that this is ASSAULT in and of itself right? Even before the stomping began?

But it appears that the main culprit, a one Tim Profitt, has come forward and "apologized". And apparently it's all the fault of the police according to him.

"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 Associated Press.

...

A friend of mine went up to three policeman before Rand got there, and told them about the girl who was standing there with that wig on and that she was getting ready to do something," Profitt said. "The policemen looked at him and said that's not our job.

So he's not sorry for physically attacking a female ... which makes him a b*tch a*s in and of itself. He's sorry "if it appeared overly forceful". Wow. Just wow.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It was hardly unprovoked OAW.

Well if approaching Mr. Paul with a sign is a "provocation" ... then certainly you will agree that there were numerous Tea Party supporters who deserved a beat down when they approached Congressmen Frank, Lewis, and Cleaver with signs during the health care reform debate a while back? That is, of course, if logical consistency holds any value for you.

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yeah, sorry. I should have said "involved in the incident" rather than just "involved".

To me, it appears she is "attacked" by only one supporter. The rest appear to be trying to restrain her. The article says she was attacked by supporters. Since I only see one, I have to assume that when the author uses a plural, he's referring to the people who were trying to restrain her, which appears to be all of those directly involved.

I'm a little rushed. Does that make sense?

Thanks for the clarification.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Yes .... really. But I should point out that what I said was that he didn't have anything to SAY. We don't hear him TELLING his supporters to leave her alone. You, OTOH, misconstrued that into APPROACH. There's a considerable difference.

OAW

How else would he know what was going on unless he approached?

The camera isn't pointed at Paul, but it seems pretty unlikely he would have had a clear view. I don't feel like frame-by-framing it, but it looks like there are about four or five people between Paul and where it went down. I would also imagine his security team closed in on him as soon as the commotion started.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well if approaching Mr. Paul with a sign is a "provocation" ... then certainly you will agree that there were numerous Tea Party supporters who deserved a beat down when they approached Congressmen Frank, Lewis, and Cleaver with signs during the health care reform debate a while back? That is, of course, if logical consistency holds any value for you.

OAW

OAW, you're severely understating the actions of the MoveOn.org hired gun. Its obvious enough that I don't need to write you a book on why. Did you miss the part of why she was there and why the people felt she needed to be restrained? Does that mean nothing to you when you try to extrapolate what happened before the video began? No one is condoning what Mr. Stompers did, but seriously dude?

Do you not have a problem with this type of political shenanigans? For MoveOn to hire people to do things that they well know are highly likely to result in incident, even get somebody hurt in the name of dragging the other party through the mud? Or is it all the fault of a few people who reacted justifiably to a situation and one who way overreacted?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well here's my 2 cents on the situation based on what the video shows ....

You seem to be completely clear with what the woman's actions were even though none of that is on the tape.

What we do see on the tape though is that she started back kind of far, and she was trying to catch up to Paul from behind him. If this is when she decided to make her move, it's not unreasonable to assume she had to build up some speed to do so. She was also in a disguise.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

That said, there's no way she has a concussion.

Why do you say that?

I guess she might have finely honed "go limp" protester skills, but the fact she's lying completely still despite what's going on would seem to indicate the opposite.

It's kind of creepy.

[Wiskedjak]

I see at least two people involved:
1 dragging her to the ground.
1 stepping on her with force.

What we don't see is what happened immediately prior to the start of the video that would indicate a need to drag her to the ground. Without that, it's impossible to say if the guy who dragged her to the ground did so with unnecessary force or not. If he was just trying to prevent from standing next to Paul with her sign, then dragging her to the ground was completely unnecessary and probably assault. If she presented an obvious a physical threat to Paul, then his actions would be justifiable.

[Dork.]

I'm waiting for the commercials that say "Vote for Rand Paul -- it's better than a kick in the head!"

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I'm waiting for the commercials that say "Vote for Rand Paul -- it's better than a kick in the head!"

LOL! You missed your calling, Dork!

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

That woman is incredibly stupid. Obviously trying to make headlines, garner attention etc by physically assaulting a political candidate with a mob of his supporters there.

"Physically assaulting?" But the guy who grabbed her and threw her on the ground was not committing assault? You're delusional.

That said, there's no way she has a concussion. I also doubt her arm or wrist or whatever is anything but a little sore.

Feel free to make up whatever facts you like, Doctor.

Did you miss the part of why she was there and why the people felt she needed to be restrained?

Did you miss the part where defending their idol is none of their business? That "why she was there" is irrelevant, and they committed assault by manhandling someone because they didn't like her motivations?

Do you not have a problem with this type of political shenanigans?

No, it's completely legit.

For MoveOn to hire people to do things that they well know are highly likely to result in incident, even get somebody hurt in the name of dragging the other party through the mud? Or is it all the fault of a few people who reacted justifiably to a situation and one who way overreacted?

Snow-i is trying to blame MoveOn for a couple of self-appointed protectors of Rand Paul beating up a woman. Delusional.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

...by manhandling someone because they didn't like her motivations?

How do you know this is why they did it?

[lpkmckenna]

Those Tea Party folks are really good at dodging "personal responsibility," aren't they: I Stomped Because Of Back Pain

"[Tim] Profitt explained that he used his foot to try and keep her down because he can't bend over because of back problems. He also says police were alerted to watch her before Paul arrived because people in the crown recognized her as someone who may try and pull a stunt."

When he's done blaming the police, blaming his back, and blaming the victim, will he finally admit he stomped on a woman's head because he didn't like her sign?

[subego]

Was that your answer?

[lpkmckenna]

No. They tackled her because they wanted to stop her from meeting Paul with her sign.

[subego]

How do you know this is why they did it?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

How do you know this is why they did it?

You're right, concluding who did what and why is a job for the police and the courts. We should leave that job to the professionals.

Just as these civilians should have left protecting Paul to the professionals. If they had, there'd be less doubt that she needed to be restrained.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You're right, concluding who did what and why is a job for the police and the courts. We should leave that job to the professionals.

Just as these civilians should have left protecting Paul to the professionals. If they had, there'd be less doubt that she needed to be restrained.

If it turned out she had been dangerous, and the civilians did what they did, would you have taken issue?

Unless you would (and I have a hard time thinking anyone would) I don't see how you aren't making your own determination here as to the what and why.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Those Tea Party folks are really good at dodging "personal responsibility," aren't they: I Stomped Because Of Back Pain

"[Tim] Profitt explained that he used his foot to try and keep her down because he can't bend over because of back problems. He also says police were alerted to watch her before Paul arrived because people in the crown recognized her as someone who may try and pull a stunt."

When he's done blaming the police, blaming his back, and blaming the victim, will he finally admit he stomped on a woman's head because he didn't like her sign?

Exactly. What Mr. Profitt and his apologists don't realize is that it's not his place to prevent her from approaching Mr. Paul with a sign that is critical of him. Period. Mr. Paul was on a public street. There were plenty of Teabaggers out there holding signs in support of Mr. Paul. She had every right to be out there holding a sign that was against him.

Again, if he and his cohorts wanted to BLOCK her access to Mr. Paul just by standing in the way that would have been one thing. Instead, they physically MANHANDLED her to the ground which is ASSAULT in and of itself. The stomping on the head and legs part was just icing on the cake.

Here's Tim "I'll stomp a lefty b*tch" Profitt ....



A criminal summons has already been issued for him already. I'm sure his mother would be so proud of the way in which he's displayed the "home training" she gave him.

And here we have a website for the second suspect who manhandled her to the ground ... a Mike "Militia Man" Pezzano. I imagine the police will be paying him a visit shortly.



Just un-freaking-believable! These guys could be the poster child for angry white males.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Clearly these two uh ... "individuals" have a serious lack of home training. Putting your hands on a woman? Seriously?

Stop being so sexist. Equality, remember?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Just un-freaking-believable! These guys could be the poster child for angry white males.

...As long as they didn't say anything like "yo, pop a cap in his ass, bitch", in which case they'd be a poster child for angry black males.

We can all do stereotypes, OAW.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

How do you know this is why they did it?

"He also says police were alerted to watch her before Paul arrived because people in the crown recognized her as someone who may try and pull a stunt."

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

...As long as they didn't say anything like "yo, pop a cap in his ass, bitch", in which case they'd be a poster child for angry black males.

We can all do stereotypes, OAW.

Perhaps. But take a look at the picture of the woman holding the assault rifle. And then just READ the captions. A tad bit violent ... n'est-ce pas?

OAW

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

...As long as they didn't say anything like "yo, pop a cap in his ass, bitch", in which case they'd be a poster child for angry black males.

If they try to engage in fisticuffs, they're angry british males.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

"He also says police were alerted to watch her before Paul arrived because people in the crown recognized her as someone who may try and pull a stunt."

Okay, that's (potentially) one person. What about the rest?

Though he didn't enter the melée, what about the guy in the suit who yelled and pointed at her?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Perhaps. But take a look at the picture of the woman holding the assault rifle.

Hot!

Originally Posted by OAW 

And then just READ the captions. A tad bit violent ... n'est-ce pas?

I know not of what captions you speak. The wall posts or the "interested in new groups about"?
To me, everyone involved (on both sides) looks like a complete asshole. The world's full of them, so it's hardly news.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If they try to engage in fisticuffs, they're angry british males.

Bizarrely, after watching the "cats doing wing chun" vid in the regular lounge, I had a look around for some examples of what my untrained, unsophisticated cats do to each other. And came across this:

YouTube - Thug gets one shotted by martial arts expert

Never a truer word said in jest, I guess. Depressing, ain't it?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I know not of what captions you speak. The wall posts or the "interested in new groups about"?

No I mean the writing on the picture ITSELF ... the one with the woman holding the gun. Where this guy is expressing his 300 "This is Sparta!!!" fantasy. That's why I called him Mike "Militia Man" Pezzano in jest.

But seriously, this guy certainly appears to be part of "The government is going to take our guns away" crowd. Enough to make that the primary image on his website. Never mind the fact that NO ONE in the federal government has confiscated his precious little assault weapons or even proposed doing so. I can certainly see someone with that kind of anti-government paranoia going on getting out of pocket like he did.

OAW

[OAW]

And just when you thought it couldn't possibly get any worse, we have the latest from Tim "I'll stomp a lefty b*tch" Profitt .....

The Rand Paul campaign volunteer who stepped on the head of a liberal activist after she had been wrestled to the ground outside a debate said Wednesday that the incident has been blown out of proportion and that the activist owes him an apology.

"She's a professional at what she does," Tim Profitt, who was fired Tuesday from Paul's Senate campaign, said in an interview with local television station WKYT. "When all the facts come out people will see that she's the one who initiated the whole thing."

Profitt acknowledged that "I put my foot on her and I did push her down" as she attempted to confront Paul outside a debate Monday night but said, "I would like for her to apologize to me to be honest with you." He said he believed the activist, 23-year-old Lauren Valle, posed a danger to Paul, a Kentucky Republican and darling of the tea party movement.

44 - Rand Paul volunteer seeks apology from liberal activist he stomped

The sense of entitlement in this guy is simply mind blowing.

OAW