http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/25/rand-paul-supporter-stomps-head_n_773857.html)

Not much more to say, other than I was probably going to give Paul himself a pass until I read his reaction... just a 'crowd control' problem, seriously? I'd say it's more of a hiring thugs problem

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020717-503544.html?tag=pop) that's a non Huffington post link.

In a statement, Paul said, "Violence of any kind has no place in our civil discourse and we urge supporters on all sides to be civil to one another as tensions rise heading toward this very important election. We are relieved to hear that the woman in question was not injured."

Valle, who reported the incident to the police, appeared to be OK afterward, though she said she was left with "a bit of a headache."

ccording to the Associated Press, the man who stepped on the woman's head is Tim Profitt, a volunteer for Paul's campaign who has now apologized for his actions. Profitt suggested the camera angle made the incident look worse than it was....

MoveOn said in a statement that "We're appalled at the violent incident that occurred at the Kentucky Senate debate last night." The group called for "those responsible" to "be brought to justice quickly" and expressed concern there have not yet been arrests.

"Numerous news reports clearly show that the young woman--a MoveOn supporter--was assaulted and pushed to the ground by Rand Paul supporters, where one man held her down while another stomped on her head," the group said. "This kind of violence has no place in American society, much less at a peaceful political rally."

Sorry for the huge block quotes, but those were the highlights of the cbs article. Interestingly enough it was cbs and Huffington Post if I was going to find this article through googlenews and didn't want to link to a blog.

If you watch the video on the cbs site, he doesn't stomp on her head -at least as far as I can tell- he is pushing down on her shoulder. And the guy who 'pushed her down' looks a lot like he tripped to me.

Is this a bad thing? Yes, the guy who did it was dumb and screwed it up.

I'm going to give Paul the pass though here, he's a politician, he's supposed to spin things his way as much as possible, and what can you say about that statement from his side without making your side sound like a bunch of bloodthirsty goons?

Ah, now I see what you were referring to, WCH.
I don't watch much news.

She went up and it looked like tried to smack into the open car window with the sign. Wouldn't surprise me if she was there just to agitate nor if she was a moveon.org'er herself.

I saw the other crowd guy, cop style, put his foot on her shoulder area. If he had stomped her head in, it would have been much more serious. She'd have a mark at the least, probably a concussion or some sign of head trauma. And we'd now have an arrest for excessive force possibly with assault w/ a deadly weapon.

No surprise huffpo is spinning it to make the crowd look as incredible and violent as possible.

While it doesn't necessarily excuse him, frankly it's hard to feel sorry for her either. Whether it's open bickering or covert planting...this kind of skirmish or discrediting thing happens at crowd gatherings.

@ below: As was I, and I'm not defending their actions. That said, I've little sympathy for anyone who goes and blatantly starts something.

Guess I’m old – I was taught you don’t hit a woman and the buck stops here. I guess those kind of things mean nothing anymore when you can do what you want and then blame the other guy.

Guess I’m old – I was taught you don’t hit a woman and the buck stops here. I guess those kind of things mean nothing anymore when you can do what you want and then blame the other guy.

That's what I was taught too. And stomping on someone's head goes beyond hitting them. I don't care how obnoxious she was being, that's some American History X **** right there. Speaking of which, I suppose it's lucky the guy didn't do a full on stomp, otherwise it could have been pretty gruesome.

Arrest Profitt for assault and battery. I hope Paul fired him.

Pretty sure he was fired.

As for assault and battery, I'm pretty sure he's going to be, kinda hard to do that on video and get away with it. I don't think anybody suggested doing otherwise with him.

It apparently didn't make a difference in the election since Paul won, and with room to spare, apparently.

Guess I’m old – I was taught you don’t hit a woman and the buck stops here.
That's what I was taught too.
Same here, but, nowadays, when certain women think that they can punch a man in the face and then get away with it by hiding behind that old-fashioned notion, it's painfully obvious that it's become obsolete, as has chivalry in general.

^^^You know that's becoming a problem nowadays. Ladies are not being very...ladylike. Hitting guys or trying worse because they know guys aren't supposed to hit a woman.

Back to the matter here:
I don't condone the use of excessive force, personally. And at the same time, jab a dog with a stick, don't be surprised when it turns and bites you.

You all might be interested to see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM)
yiLeud-sxrM
She approached the vehicle. Not sure if she was just showing the sign or trying to do something more. It freaked out the security detail.

In retrospect, she claims she was 'only showing her sign', but she is a liberal activist and undeniably has participated in antagonism. So, seeing all this, I question if her motive wasn't to get the reaction she got in order to say just "how terrible" Rand Paul's supporters are.

Nevertheless the woman did not deserve the treatment she got and that supporter has only hurt the cause he championed. I say this not solely because of the social/political backlash of it, but from a standpoint of general decency and civility.

Same old story, blame the victim.

So what if she was trying to get a reaction. The point is she got one.

Also the way I was taught it does not matter what the woman/lady does. I have no responsibility for her actions. The only person I am responsible for is myself and I was taught you do not hit a woman. There were no addendums that said except when she does such and such. One of the few times I can recall that my family being both unanimous and showing zero tolerance.

There should never be any physical abuse carried out against the female gender from the opposite sex, no matter what the circumstances are. The physical difference between the two genders alone should be reason enough and just one blow from a man could kill.

But Evil Q and GTA brought up a good point, some women do take advantage of a man's chivalry and do commit physical abuse upon men when they know they can get away with it.


Anyway, I believe the guy lost his cool and didn't have the guts to just simply walk or drive away.

But Evil Q and GTA brought up a good point, some women do take advantage of a man's chivalry and do commit physical abuse upon men when they know they can get away with it.Agreed, but I believe the point is moot as no one is debating that was not the case and it does not matter either way. For all I know she may have deserved to get her head stooped. Point is a man should not be the one doing the stooping and it dang sure should not be done by someone man or woman in authority. Security is hired to protect everyone from bodily hard, not be the one doing the harming. If he would have restrained her for the legal authorities then he would have been well within his rights. However, he decided to be judge, jury and executioner which is beyond his job description.

I don't understand why there is even a debate here.....she was on the ground, immobilized. He stomped her head.

=douchebag

Same old story, blame the victim.
Hardly. I already said she didn't deserve what she got. Maybe you didn't understand what exactly I meant by that, so "let me be clear": I meant that regardless of her intentions and motives. I merely questioned them--I made no accusation.

And if questioning motives is qualification for victim blaming, then you might as well execute someone for simply being suspicious.

So what if she was trying to get a reaction. The point is she got one.

And I am not happy that something happened either from a decency standpoint.


I have a PM for you regarding these values in a not so B&W situation or two. I'd rather not veer of topic.

Also the way I was taught it does not matter what the woman/lady does. I have no responsibility for her actions. The only person I am responsible for is myself and I was taught you do not hit a woman. There were no addendums that said except when she does such and such. One of the few times I can recall that my family being both unanimous and showing zero tolerance.
Have you ever been assaulted by a woman? I'm not talking about slapping, either. It happened to me a couple of times before I wizened up and clocked the crazy sow. I have a right to defend myself, and I'm no longer willing to fall on my sword for scum who are out to exploit my good intentions, regardless of their gender.
I don't understand why there is even a debate here.....she was on the ground, immobilized. He stomped her head.

=douchebag
Oh, I'm not debating this particular case at all. That guy deserves to have the book thrown at him, as well as being taken to the cleaners in a civil suit.

Agreed, but I believe the point is moot as no one is debating that was not the case and it does not matter either way. For all I know she may have deserved to get her head stooped. Point is a man should not be the one doing the stooping and it dang sure should not be done by someone man or woman in authority. Security is hired to protect everyone from bodily hard, not be the one doing the harming. If he would have restrained her for the legal authorities then he would have been well within his rights. However, he decided to be judge, jury and executioner which is beyond his job description.

Very true Mimartin, and more so than ever in this case. The particular individual in this incident, stepped well over his boundries and duties IMO.


I don't understand why there is even a debate here.....she was on the ground, immobilized. He stomped her head.

=douchebag

No debate really, just a point brought up that some females tend to commit physical abuse against the male gender also. But in this incident, it is clearly the man who has done the physical abuse.

Have you ever been assaulted by a woman? I'm not talking about slapping, either. It happened to me a couple of times before I wizened up and clocked the crazy sow. I have a right to defend myself, and I'm no longer willing to fall on my sword for scum who are out to exploit my good intentions, regardless of their gender.

Darn right. The second that she makes it clear that she's actually trying to take me out, I'm defending myself.

I'm not trying to make this an argument of whether men should be able to hit women, but it annoys me when I see people pulling out the gender card on this. No one deserves treatment like that (man or woman)...once you are on the ground, it doesn't matter how big you are or how strong you are...you're stuck and you're basically defenseless from being "stomped." Don't make this about a man attacking a woman (not aiming at you Evil Q, this is just in general)...make it about a person attacking an innocent and basically defenseless person.

Back to the topic at hand: Tea Partiers (I seem to recall we're not supposed to call them that other thing because someone whined) are inbred pond scum.

Back to the topic at hand: Tea Partiers (I seem to recall we're not supposed to call them that other thing because someone whined) are inbred pond scum.


haha alllllright...