GOP supporter stomps head of opponent

[EagleSmack]

Regardless...this is the liberal tactics that they accuse conservatives of doing all the time. Where conservatives get in trouble is reacting to clowns like this. She is obviously a profeessional agitator in an act of desperation because current events aren't going their way.

 

[mentalfloss]

Who cares? The point is that there was clearly no threat of physical harm and she got headstomped a few moments after. Whether or not she has extreme views shouldn't detract from that as I'm sure there are plenty of conservative/liberal/socialist/libertarian/environmentalist/anarchist/religious or other protesters mucking about. We could laugh at good length at the instigation coming from Teabaggers, but that doesn't mean their views should take any attention away from violent recourse. Please keep the spin to yourself.

 

[DaSleeper]

The previous photos miss the part where a running man clearly stops her from shoving the sign in the open car window.....

 

[karrie]

The previous photos miss the part where a running man clearly stops her from shoving the sign in the open car window.....

yeah, that's the part that was a red flag for me.

 

[Unforgiven]

At the same time Unf, this crap of thinking you can get into someone's space when you ARE protesting, and not expect your actions to be taken threateningly in that environment, is crap. If I, sitting here, can see how her actions could be taken threateningly, imagine how supporters looking at it from other angles can see it too. And no... that doesn't excuse physical violence... I think bub was ten times more 'wrong' than she was, but, she didn't do 'nothing'.

So it's not touching someone it's getting in their space that is threatening? Is that to mean that should you come close to me, I have the right to use as much force as necessary to make you leave my space? Perhaps a definition of space in due, but that seems to me to set the argument for justified homicide because of a look. I suggest that a person has to honestly feel threatened by a viable threat, as opposed to bubbles floating on the breeze for example.

If he did feel threatened, why was the window down? He never felt threatened at all. Further I would think that if a man was threatened by a small but vocal woman with a cardboard sign then he should nut up before running for office.

More and more the right tries to criminalize legal protest. That is a very stupid thing to do as once it catches on and gets in the wrong hands, the right dies just as the left does.

 

[karrie]

So it's not touching someone it's getting in their space that is threatening? Is that to mean that should you come close to me, I have the right to use as much force as necessary to make you leave my space? Perhaps a definition of space in due, but that seems to me to set the argument for justified homicide because of a look. I suggest that a person has to honestly feel threatened by a viable threat, as opposed to bubbles floating on the breeze for example.

If he did feel threatened, why was the window down? He never felt threatened at all. Further I would think that if a man was threatened by a small but vocal woman with a cardboard sign then he should nut up before running for office.

More and more the right tries to criminalize legal protest. That is a very stupid thing to do as once it catches on and gets in the wrong hands, the right dies just as the left does.

First of all... I never said the assault that happened after they pulled her away from the vehicle was justified... I stated the exact opposite. And second of all, if you smack me in the face with a sign but don't touch me, how is that not invading my space? She very clearly needed to be pulled away from hitting him with her sign.

As for Rand Paul himself, how he felt, or how he reacted, is beside the point. She attempted to shove a sign through the window at his head, people outside the vehicle attempted to stop her. It got taken too far.

As I said before, I'd be charging both parties.

 

[mentalfloss]

The previous photos miss the part where a running man clearly stops her from shoving the sign in the open car window.....

Dude! That's after she got pushed around and the sign went awry! Watch the video again.

 

[karrie]

Dude! That's after she got pushed around and the sign went awry! Watch the video again.

She said herself that she was trying to give him the sign, so yes, she was trying to put it in the window.

From DaS's link... "
“Her purpose was to try to get a picture with Rand Paul with this [RepubliCorp] sign so it could be used to embarrass Rand Paul in commercials,” [Lexington police Lt. Edward] Hart said, recounting what Valle told officers. She described herself as a contract employee with MoveOn.org.
…Valle told WDRB that she was there to present Paul with an award from RepubliCorp."


The fact of the matter is, she is a paid **** disturber, not someone with an actual opinion. She showed up to attempt to get press out of it. She got it. That should not be okay in any political system.

 

[mentalfloss]

I'm simply arguing that the sign was not meant to be used in some violent manner. If she was a paid poopdisturber, then that's not right either, but that shouldn't justify the headstomp.

 

[karrie]

I've never seen a single person here say the head stomp was justified.

 

[DaSleeper]

I've never seen a single person here say the head stomp was justified.

Even Fox News (with a better video) don't say it was justified....contrary to some people's take

YouTube - Fox News Paints Lauren Valle as the Aggressor - MoveOn.org Supporter attacked at Rand Paul Debate

 

[Tonington]

she quite clearly attempted to hit Rand Paul in the face with her sign in the video that shows what happened earlier. 'attempted assault'?

I see Rand Paul getting out of his vehicle, and walking away from his vehicle, then the camera looks back and the scuffle ensues between the activist and the Paul supporters.

I don't see any clear attempt to hit him in the face...
Video here since the youtube link is broken:
Pop Up Video

 

[mentalfloss]

I've never seen a single person here say the head stomp was justified.

So then what does her protesting stratagem or 'funding' have to do with any of this? I'm not saying it's right, but I'd just like to connect the dots here.

 

[DaSleeper]

I see Rand Paul getting out of his vehicle, and walking away from his vehicle, then the camera looks back and the scuffle ensues between the activist and the Paul supporters.

I don't see any clear attempt to hit him in the face...
Video here since the youtube link is broken:
Pop Up Video

Now watch the video completely and the sequence of event...First she tries to get to him as the limo is moving...she is stopped...that is not where the head stomping occurred.....she runs around the limo while it is stopping and comes back around the front of the vehicle running.....still carrying her sign...and that is where she is finaly tackled as she is trying to reach rand paul a second time......Watch at around 55second into the video....this one seems clearer than the first one I posted

YouTube - Lauren Valle-What the liberal media doesn't want you to see

 

[mentalfloss]

Wait.. so if what you're saying is true.. so ... she didn't get beaten until after a second attempt at getting a picture with Rand??? HOLY ****

 

[Unforgiven]

First of all... I never said the assault that happened after they pulled her away from the vehicle was justified... I stated the exact opposite.

But that is the thing you see, if you are assaulted then you have the right to use reasonable force to defend yourself. So if as you say, she is trying to hand him a sign, what is reasonable since it's his supporters that are jostling her?

And second of all, if you smack me in the face with a sign but don't touch me, how is that not invading my space? She very clearly needed to be pulled away from hitting him with her sign.

So here we are again. Either she was giving him the sign or she was smacking him with it? It's a very important distinction.

As for Rand Paul himself, how he felt, or how he reacted, is beside the point. She attempted to shove a sign through the window at his head, people outside the vehicle attempted to stop her. It got taken too far.

Ah but it is the point Karrie. If he felt threatened, then he has rights. Not someone else. None of those people were the object of her attention other than Rand Paul. So none of them could have felt threatened by her actions.
It did get taken too far. That guy who stomped on her could have broken her neck. For me that is the whole point. More and more this is the mentality that is invading politics. If you want to protest, you better do it well out of sight. Not to invoke Godwin's but that's what the Brown Shirts were used for.

As I said before, I'd be charging both parties.

You see, I disagree with this and I'll tell you why. If the only way you can get anywhere near a politician to protest, is in a scrum with those who don't want you to protest or be anywhere near the politician they support, then protest is done. Only violence works and we see the result of that in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Iran and Iraq. Russia went through that phase after the fall of the Soviet Union and China still has an iron grip on the people. What ever happened to "I don't agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for you to say it"? This Tea Party Movement seems to be hell bent on putting the stake in the heart of that heart felt motto.

 

[karrie]

So then what does her protesting stratagem or 'funding' have to do with any of this? I'm not saying it's right, but I'd just like to connect the dots here.

As I stated, he was wrong to assault her. But, were this case to hit 'the courtroom of karrie', I'd also tackle the issue that she was behaving aggressively and out of hand which sparked a devolving chain of events. People like her involving themselves in politics is disruptive (simply for the sake of discruption rather than actual opinion or voice), and I think the US needs to find a way to ensure that their political process is not highjacked but such theatrics.

You see, I disagree with this and I'll tell you why. If the only way you can get anywhere near a politician to protest, is in a scrum with those who don't want you to protest or be anywhere near the politician they support, then protest is done. Only violence works and we see the result of that in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Iran and Iraq. Russia went through that phase after the fall of the Soviet Union and China still has an iron grip on the people. What ever happened to "I don't agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for you to say it"? This Tea Party Movement seems to be hell bent on putting the stake in the heart of that heart felt motto.

I think every last person has the right to peacefully protest for their personal views. I DO NOT believe that anyone has the right to shove a sign physically into someone else's face without expecting reaction from surrounding people. And I do not believe that anyone should have the right to hire someone else to go protest for them.

 

[mentalfloss]

As I stated, he was wrong to assault her. But, were this case to hit 'the courtroom of karrie', I'd also tackle the issue that she was behaving aggressively and out of hand which sparked a devolving chain of events. People like her involving themselves in politics is disruptive (simply for the sake of discruption rather than actual opinion or voice), and I think the US needs to find a way to ensure that their political process is not highjacked but such theatrics.

Granted, but if she is being paid to do this and there are clear laws against protesting in the 'enemy camp', then vicarious liability goes to the employer. And all the douchebag providers should be brought to trial whether it is Soros or Murdoch or whoever.

By the way, her 'theatrics' are no worse than the theatrics of media culling - which are in fact much worse since they happen every day. This is primarily an issue of transparency. Knowing what corporations or government outlets are funding political chess moves through protest actions or the media.

Now time for my spin: One party is trying to actually promote transparency. The other one is avoiding it altogether. I'll let you take a guess which is which.

 

[karrie]

Now time for my spin: One party is trying to actually promote transparency. The other one is avoiding it altogether. I'll let you take a guess which is which.

Well, my guess would be that whatever party funders are hiring people like her to protest election rallies, are no exactly being transparent. And since she doesn't seem to be associated with the Republicans, that leads me to the other side of the political spectrum. And since one person from the Republican side (the head stomper) can be tossed out to embody the whole (despite the others yelling at him to get off), then I'd suppose she can be tossed out as well to encompass the whole of her side, right? Which doesn't bode well for American politics, at all.

BTW, for anyone interested, this is Michael Moore's description of events....

"There she was, thrown to the pavement by a Republican in a checkered shirt. Another Republican thrusts his foot in between her legs and presses down with all his weight to pin her to the curb. Then a Republican leader comes over and viciously stomps on her head with his foot. You hear her glasses crunch under the pressure. Holding her head down with his foot, he applies more force so she can't move. Her skull and brain are now suffering a concussion."

 

[Tonington]

Now watch the video completely and the sequence of event...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbX2AtdKAk

She's tenacious, I'm not denying that. I just don't see a clear attempt to hit him in the face. That wouldn't embarrass him, in fact it would probably give him an edge, a talking point.