General discussion

this is what a thug does

Discussion is locked

Reply to: this is what a thug does
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: this is what a thug does
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
Indeed. Thuggery happens on both sides ...

Just as tasteless barbs come from both sides. You should be embarrassed by your comment regarding the assault.

- Collapse -
No thuggerfy...

It's highly exaggerated. There is NO "stomping" on that video. I agree the one guy was overzealous, but the Rand supporters were obviously concerned with the candidate's safety. They are calling for police as they restrained her. She's laughing and smiling the whole time.

The girl is a known agitator and I believe she got exactly what she was looking for. It's nothing but agitprop for the consumption of the gullible.

Funny how when Bobby Jindal's aide was REALLY assaulted and her leg broken in 3 places we heard nothing but scoffing from the usual lefty sources.

- Collapse -
The Jindal aide episode is irrelevant here

I'm not sure why you would even MENTION the Jindal aide episode except as an attempt at distraction. Yeah, both sides have been guilty. That justifies NOTHING.

Was this event exaggerated? Perhaps.
Did some of the people at the rally act appropriately by restraining/ejecting the offending thug? Apparently so.
Was the victim trying to stir up trouble? Undoubtedly. That hardly justifies the response.

Still, the foot on the head/neck was no love tap. It was neither appropriate nor necessary. 'Stomp' is perhaps a slight exaggeration but I think thuggery is still an appropriate description of the behavior.

If you want to condemn thuggery then you need to condemn it in all cases, not just the ones involving people you agree with.

- Collapse -
It's relevant because...

it shows the hypocrisy of those who charge that this incident is indicative of thug behavior while they show only disdain for the REAL victim in that case.

I DID say the foot on the neck was overzealous.

- Collapse -
Saw this played several times on Chris Matthews...
And each time he lied about what was being shown onscreen. The usual "nazi" meme is being heavily employed by Liberals.

"What is this behavior by American political activists where they now arrest people, stomp them?" he asked. "These are supposed to be people who are just good old American tea partiers."

Matthews continued his rebuke of tea party activist by highlighting a recent incident in Alaska where security for GOP Senate nominee Joe Miller briefly detained a blogger.

"I gotta wonder when people are gonna start wearing uniforms," he said. "I mean they've got an army out there in Alaska of militia people.

"You've got these guys going around acting like street thugs," the MSNBC host added. "I mean it isn't far from what we saw in the thirties, where all of a sudden, political parties started showing up in uniform."

Exactly the effect the "victim" was going for.
- Collapse -
"I gotta wonder when people are gonna start wearing uniforms," he said. "I mean they've got an army out there in Alaska of militia people.

I've got to wonder when Chris Matthews will be prancing in the streets in drag looking for tickles up his leg, snort!
- Collapse -
I agree with the Dr.

Any other case(s) does not matter here.
This (non)issue can stand by itself.
She got what she deserved.

- Collapse -
Hardly ...

She got restrained. That was predictable and reasonable.
but then ...
She got assaulted. She did not deserve that.

Personally I think it is unwise to engage in agitprop-like activities because there is a risk that things will go wrong, just as it is unwise to jog in Central Park in the middle of the night when gangs are running around, but we should not lose sight of the fact that her lack of wisdom (or her silly political views) do not justify the outcome.

- Collapse -
I disagree..

if she got what she deserved she'd be in jail.

Attempted assault, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace.

- Collapse -
You forgot "wearing a wig"

That's what really got their attention.

- Collapse -
(NT) a disguise?
- Collapse -
how should protestors protest?

Do you have a rule book on that?

- Collapse -
Was she protesting?

I don't think so. Attacking is more like it.

- Collapse -
Yes, you should ...
I heard he only stepped on her because he had back problems and couldn't bend over.

The barb was inappropriate.
- Collapse -
I guess I should clarify ...

In the context of the original post and without any context for the quote it appeared that you were just randomly making a barbed remark about the assailant. If he did in fact say what your later links says, then I can't object ... except to note that by posting a clearly inflammatory statement without context or source you were setting yourself up. Perhaps deliberately.

- Collapse -
without context or source

I saw it on the Daily show..I can't tell if link to American programs will work for you, and you can't watch Canadian links, so I don't provide them.

That's why no link when first posted...

- Collapse -
he stepped on her because

he stepped on her because he had back problems and couldn't bend over.

I removed the word "only", instead of "issues" I used "problems" and he did say he couldn't bend over.

I had removed the word "only" in one of the drafts of my OP, but after I made a couple of corrections the final post contained the word "only". It wasn't intended to convey the meaning that he "only" stepped on her because his back was sore and he couldn't "kick" her because of issues with his back.

Is that any better?

I'm not embarrassed...if you want to take it out of context...go for it.

- Collapse -
we're missing something

We are missing what happened before. Is there a longer video of it which includes anything that might have prompted the takedown?

- Collapse -
Sort of his own personal political agenda
- Collapse -
Prompted the takedown?

Maybe there was and maybe there wasn't something that merited restraint. But 2 to 3 men knocking a woman down and one stomping her head?

Was she disrupting a rally, perhaps. Or was it just a peaceful protest of his policies, perhaps.

But nothing justifies the boot on her neck short of a weapon in her hand. And no where did I see such a claim of that, even on the most critical of her article I read.

Such behavior comes from a few in every group, no matter how much they deny it. The more extreme or rigid the agenda, the more likely there is to be violent members.

- Collapse -
Again, there was no "stomping..."

She could easily have been an assassin, a la Squeaky Fromme.

- Collapse -
And several men couldn't restrain her

even on the ground without a foot to the neck when there was no weapon seen yet?

Sorry, but that logic allows anyone to throw anyone they think is suspicious to the ground and stand on them.

A suicide bomber might couldn't be stopped, but then, what happen to the idea we shouldn't give up too many of our rights and freedoms in the name of security?

- Collapse -
She was charging Rand..

What they did was entirely appropriate. What rights of hers were violated?

- Collapse -
No weapon seen yet...

"YET" is the operative term.

If you wait until a weapon is shown, you waited too long. She was acting in an assaultive manner.

They were calling for police assistance. Hardly what "thugs' would do.

- Collapse -
Ever hear of Squeaky Fromme?
- Collapse -
You're right

Other video shown on CBS last evening shows that the woman rushed Rand's car and was restrained. Katie Couric was the reporter who noted this and also mentioned that the person who put his foot on the woman and then pushed it down (it wasn't really a stomp as reported) received verbal rejection from those around him and was removed from the campaign. To me, that video looks more like an attempt to protect the candidate from an attacker. The extra curricular activity wasn't warranted and it was dealt with immediately. I won't post the news link but it's out there for anyone who really cares to know the rest of the story.

- Collapse -
The Stompee Admits It

She deserved the takedown at least.
"Rand Paul's car arrived, and as soon as it did, a couple of them stepped right in front of me and so I stepped off the curb to get around them, back out to the front, and at that point they started grabbing for me and I ran all the way around the car with them in pursuit, and the point at which they see the footage is after I've run all the way around the car and am in front of the car and that is when they take me down," Valle said.

- Collapse -
Yes, she probably should have been restrained ...

The stompee admits what? It sounds to me like she admitted she was a troublemaker but that's about it.

I don't think any objective observer will argue that restraining her was inappropriate, and it is generally safer for everybody involved to have more than one person doing the restraining. A law enforcement friend of mine told me once that safely restraining a really combative person requires 5 people.

That said, she did NOT deserve to be assaulted while restrained.

I'm not saying it is the candidate's fault, just saying that it appeared to be assault and I don't think 'thug' would be an inappropriate description of the guy who used his foot on her head/neck. It appears to have been both deliberate and unnecessary.

- Collapse -
He's been charged..

Which is appropriate. All the other hoo-haw from the left is, IMO, useless noise.

CNET Forums

Forum Info