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