You are good at reinventing history. Events in order: 1. Girl awaits oncoming vehicle. 2. Girl runs up to vehicle untouched holding a sign that is backwards. 3. Girl flips sign around, a very small portion of the sign goes in the window as she flips it. 4. Girl is pulled away by security. 5. Vehicle stops. 6. Paul exits vehicle. 7. Paul's security detail escorts him towards destination. 8. Camera pans back to woman who is being grabbed by members of the rally. 9. Girl runs toward camera away from those grabbing her. 10. Girl grabbed by multiple people. A whig is slapped back on her head. 11. Girl freezes and is pulled back and tackled. 12. Girl falls into fetal position. 13. Girl is pinned down by a man. 14. Said man fondles her breast. 15. Another man places his foot on top of her right leg to keep her down. 16. A third man places his foot on her shoulder. 17. Said third man then puts greater force than he once was along her neck/facial region. Please tell me where I am wrong. Where does she burst through security twice?
http://powip.com/2010/10/obviously-doctored-video-of-head-stompee-at-rand-paul-debate/ There is the video for you again. She does sprint past security twice.
Correct, mc Mark, FranchiseBlade, and others have all claimed what that lady did was not a crime (in fact, they claim she was just "showing a sign" ). Nobody has claimed that what the security guard did was legal and appropriate. At least not that I have seen.
A sign is not a knife and intention alone isn't assault. Further just the actions of approaching someone even if you are showing signs of ill will isn't assault. Consider the situation of two guys having an argument. One guy starts walking towards the other guy shaking his fist when the friends of the guy who is walking forward in a threatening manner grab the guy and restrain him. At that point the first guy isn't committing assault even though that very well might've been his intention. Under the standard you are applying anytime that happens then that person is assaulting that person. Under your reasoning Carlos Beltran is guilty of assault since he is showing hostility toward the ump and is restrained. <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FD9LRr4gzmg?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FD9LRr4gzmg?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object> Wielding a knife is different as their is pretty much only one intention in regard to that. The act of approaching someone with bad intention, especially when not carrying a weapon, isn't assault. Wearing a wig and hoody isn't illegal too. If it is I would like you to cite the law showing so.
The first time any security gets to her is after she flips the sign (the man in the suit). There is one guy in a Rand Paul shirt that is just a random guy at the rally and not security. DEBUNKED.
Did she have a gun, boxcutters or any other sort of weapon? The problem with your reasoning is that even while you agree that Paul's supporters went too far is that you and especially Tallnover are justifying actions that have a profound implication in regard to public protest. Essentially that would justify the supporters of any politician roughing up any protester who tried to approach their politician. Is that the kind of country that you want? Also just to add you were the guy who said that kids selling lemonade, even your own, should expect to be interacting with the public even if they were critical, yet you are now saying that politicians should be shielded from such interactions. While there are risks to politicians interacting with the public is what they do and that also means dealing with cranks and nutjobs who will try to embarrass them.
No, I said intent matters. You claimed I was confusing intent with the law (or something like that). Which is wrong, because intent is very much an issue when considering assault. Is Carlos Beltran hiding his identity? Is Carlos Beltran sprinting past security?
So you agree security is around Paul? Would you agree that they are their to make sure people don't approach/engage Paul (part of security's job)? Yet she sprints at(engages) Paul. Sounds like she sprinted to get past security to me. Lets put it this way; if she had walked up to the car or asked security if she could go to the car, she wouldn't have gotten near the car. Thus she sprinted to get past security.
I'm glad Squeaky Fromm has been brought to the discussion. Because once we've established that a sign can be a knife, or can contain a knife, we have to admit that the sign could also actually be housing an automatic assault rifle or grenade launcher, if not a WMD. Especially if MoveOn is working with "the asians." (Isn't Reggie White in the Tea Party patriots?) PS : the best part of all of this, in the end, is a bunch of white men with "don't tread on me" flags and shirts and banners (a) getting worked up over a sign, and (b) literally treading on a person they disagree with. "Don't tread on me! Stomp on her!" Makes a better flag I think.
No, it can't. Demonizing this young woman was wrong, but Nazi propaganda was used to convince the German people that what they were doing was right and to cover up the fact that millions of people were being slaughtered. Apples and submarines.
But he is approaching the ump in a hostile manner. In terms of sprinting past security you are free to run up to a politician or anyone else. Supporters and groupies do it all the time. Hiding your identity again isn't a crime if it was you should be out and about on Halloween making citizen's arrest. You are still continuing to confuse intent with the law. Intent matters in assault when it takes place but none took place here. Anyway if your reasoning is right why hasn't the woman been charged?
rocketsjudoka, you do recognize the routine now, yes? In his third (or Nth?) incarnation, he's a little calmer, but it's still him. I fell for it also. But trollers gonna troll.
But did anyone reaaalllly know what Carlos Beltran's intentions were? I mean....you're pretty sure you know what to expect from the guy...and then he stabs you in the back in a newyork minute. Isn't there *something* you could charge him with? Abandonment? False pretense? Suckitude?
Yes. You are free to protests and I encourage people to do so but trying sneak up to someone you disagree with politically to hold a sarcastic award is a stupid political stunt and those type of things no matter what political side you are on is debasing politics. I will defend the woman's right to do what she did, criticize Paul's supporters for their overreaction and those who think she committed some crime but what she did was stupid and not something to be upheld. It does but her behavior also reinforces what people on the Right think of the Left. As I said such actions debase politics.
I don't understand this phrase. To determine if something is assault you judge intent. You can not charge past someone's security and engage them physically against their will (technically you can't purposely engage someone physically whether they have security or not. For example, I can't go pinch a stranger on the street.). If you don't believe me, then go try it with your local politician. Ask Paul. I have no idea why he won't press charges but I could come up with some easy guesses. Election day is in a few days and he is way ahead.
Do you have evidence that charges were filed against her and that Paul has asked for charges to be dropped? Also under the circumstances you describe it technically wouldn't be, depending on KY law, Paul's call to dismiss the charges. From my understanding if there is clear evidence that a crime is committed the victim isn't free to dismiss the charges. This goes to the situation of spousal abuse where a woman might be afraid to press charges. There is video evidence of what this woman did and I have yet to see a link or other facts showing that she was charged in the first place.
