Non-resisting? She eluded tacklers like Steve Slaton used to.... and she lowered her head as she headed for the goal line... only to be stopped short!! I still haven't seen a toe touch her head much less a foot STOMP it.
I don't really know what the first amendment has to do with proximity.... She can make a sign, I guess. I heard the story on the radio this week of the guy with the Bush T-shirt that was fired from a crew putting up a stage for some Democratic event so there are all sorts of exceptions made when it suits. And his T-shirt was for a carrier names after Bush 41 I think on which his son was serving. I'm not at all sure that the First Amendment is meant to protect our right to embarrass anyone. If I started following people on a public sidewalk and embarrassing them, I'm quite sure I'd end up in hand-cuffs before too very long. And I do think that politicians deserve special protection because they can be targets moreso than plain citizens.
http://all247news.com/infamous-head-stomper-tim-profitt-charged-with-assault-over-rand-paul-rally-attack/7222/ Infamous Head Stomper, Tim Profitt, Charged with Assault over Rand Paul Rally Attack It looks like Tim Profitt won’t be getting the “apology” from his victim that he had hoped for. He is being charged with misdemeanor assault after a video was taken of him stomping down on the side of a female activist’s head after she had been restrained at a Rand Paul rally. When we did this story last week there was a commenter who said that Profitt had put his foot on the woman’s back and urged people to watch the video. Obviously, he did not watch it himself and the police Kentucky agree. Profitt is being charged with fourth degree assault after he attacked a Liberal activist who was attempting to give Rand Paul a mock award during a rally on Monday night. Paul’s campaign has dropped Profitt after the publicity backlash caused many to question who it was volunteering for the Tea Party favorite. He will be going in front of a judge in November.
She was lying still on the ground being held there, Proffit already had his foot on her shoulder/neck. He lifted up and the foot slid to the head/neck and he forced it down on her. At no time during any of that was she resisting.
No they would not. They would have set up a security perimeter further away from the car than that. There was no such perimeter here.
In the absence of such a perimeter and of SS protection, the Senate candidate is on his or her own. Thus we should not assume that a supporter is violent for seeking to protect him or her from a perceived threat. Obviously in hindsight the Paul supporter was wrong, but we should not jump to the conclusion that this is an example of Tea Party violence. It takes a sick and twisted mind to turn this unfortunate mistake into such a generalization.
the "victim" was nothing more than a nazi terrorist in league with Osama Hussein Obama. Clearly she was a threat and may have been carrying a bomb to "take out" a great libertarian hero. Victim? Hardly, they should have taken her out and removed the terrorist threat. One less radical Islamasist who should have been deported anyway. Being born in America doesn't guarantee citizenship and equal rights, especially if you are a liberal protester that is annoying to the tea party. But you have to hand it to the tea party, they didn't discriminate against her for being a woman. Nope, they treated her like a 400 lbs gorilla and someone they loved....to hate! Good job angry tea partiers. Way to show it to the commies and kick their arse..um neck!
It's interesting to see the Tea PArtiers defend / excuse criminals. I wonder if they are getting soft on crime. Maybe they should defend all criminals while they are at it.
The supporter is wrong to perceive a threat from a known person who poses no threat. I'm not generalizing anything. I haven't said this is typical of tea Party behavior. I have said that it's crazy to start slamming the victim in the case with a bunch of false charges and lies.
I said the man was wrong. He over-reacted. You may not have generalized to all Tea Party folk, but plenty of other liberals (especially in the media) have.
You mean the guy who was bouncing around in the video of "the incident" standing over a downed union guy (the one who ended up with a separated shoulder) when another guy pulls him away and in the process they both fall? You mean the guy who quickly gets up after the fall? You mean the guy who was severely beaten he didn't get treated at the scene, but instead, later sought out medical care? You mean the guy who was able and coherent enough to talk to the cops and the cameraman and the next day was in a wheelchair and so heavily medicated he couldn't talk? You mean the guy who was protesting health care but had lost his job and asked for donations to pay for the care of his "injuries?" That Ken Gladney?
