Technically I suppose they could both be charged with assault. I just don't see her being charged, not in the South.
Cpt. Douche: She charged into me!
Judge: You need to effin grow a pair, dude, she weighs 90 pounds.
I didn't exactly see what the lady did wrong from a legal perspective (i watched the video of her apparently rushing rand paul and then being tackled down, and eventually stepped on by capt. douche)
Lady : some sort of misconduct violation, disturbing the peace? Prob not enough evidence other then witness testimony
Capt. douche: assault, video evidence
I highly doubt any civil remedy is available in either of these options, but it's clear both of them could be prosecuted to a certain extent.
I didn't exactly see what the lady did wrong from a legal perspective (i watched the video of her apparently rushing rand paul and then being tackled down, and eventually stepped on by capt. douche)
Lady : some sort of misconduct violation, disturbing the peace? Prob not enough evidence other then witness testimony
Capt. douche: assault, video evidence
I highly doubt any civil remedy is available in either of these options, but it's clear both of them could be prosecuted to a certain extent.
Go and watch the raw video PJABBER posted on page 2 of this thread, and then correct your first sentence in this quote. You think that's legal? At the very least - and I'm not a lawyer so this is just my guess - that's creating a public disturbance. Purposefully. At a political event that should be about the politics, not public disturbances.
Which this idiot full well knows, but, decided to do anyways.
Zero sympathy.
Chuck
P.S. He doesn't even "stomp" her head. He firmly pushes down on her very upper back area, to give her the message to stay the F down. And, guess what: It worked. She didn't move after that.
You don't see a problem with a person wearing a disguise (wig and sunglasses) bull rushing a person running for the Senate with some kind of object in her hand? Really??
Go and watch the raw video PJABBER posted on page 2 of this thread, and then correct your first sentence in this quote. You think that's legal? At the very least - and I'm not a lawyer so this is just my guess - that's creating a public disturbance. Purposefully. At a political event that should be about the politics, not public disturbances.
Which this idiot full well knows, but, decided to do anyways.
Zero sympathy.
Chuck
P.S. He doesn't even "stomp" her head. He firmly pushes down on her very upper back area, to give her the message to stay the F down. And, guess what: It worked. She didn't move after that.
Go and watch the raw video PJABBER posted on page 2 of this thread, and then correct your first sentence in this quote. You think that's legal? At the very least - and I'm not a lawyer so this is just my guess - that's creating a public disturbance. Purposefully. At a political event that should be about the politics, not public disturbances.
Which this idiot full well knows, but, decided to do anyways.
Zero sympathy.
Chuck
P.S. He doesn't even "stomp" her head. He firmly pushes down on her very upper back area, to give her the message to stay the F down. And, guess what: It worked. She didn't move after that.
She didn't move because that's her training as a professional leftist agitator. Provoke the violence, then be very passive so that her masters get good footage of passive, helpless "students" being abused. Her lack of movement, and her evident satisfaction afterward, show that she got the violence she needed. I too have zero sympathy for her and every sympathy for the man stomping her, but that doesn't make what he did right. Hell, I have some sympathy for O.J. too; that doesn't mean I wouldn't have convicted him (assuming the evidence was there.)
She didn't move because that's her training as a professional leftist agitator. Provoke the violence, then be very passive so that her masters get good footage of passive, helpless "students" being abused. Her lack of movement, and her evident satisfaction afterward, show that she got the violence she needed. I too have zero sympathy for her and every sympathy for the man stomping her, but that doesn't make what he did right. Hell, I have some sympathy for O.J. too; that doesn't mean I wouldn't have convicted him (assuming the evidence was there.)
i totally agree she should have been detained by citizen responders, but "sneaking one in" like stomping a tackled football player is clearly wrong and will be punished......unless the witness wimps out
She was clearly easily detained by an unfit guy, the stomping served no purpose other than unnecessary bodily harm
My home county (Rhea County, TN) had an experience with professional leftist agitators. They stole (and later burned) a rollback, moved some concrete-filled barrels to block off a nuclear plant, tore up everything they could find, then spray painted what they could tear up. Local sheriff arrested them, of course, which they expect. Then things went a little off expectations. None of them carried ID. They all gave names like "George Washington" and "Abraham Lincoln". And they all expected to be released on their own recognizance. Didn't happen.
First, the sheriff decided that since none of them had ID, they'd have to be held until the judge was available for arraignment. Then the judge refused bail, since none of them could prove their identity. Those who recanted were then charged with lying to a policeman. Most of them were held for weeks, until trial, when of course they were given slaps on the wrist. In the mean time the sheriff fed them sausage biscuits for breakfast and bologna sandwiches for lunch and supper - and of course, most of them were vegans.
No way could the County recoup the damage they did, but their treatment (and subsequent indignation) was funny as hell.
Freedom isn't free douchebag. It doesn't matter if somebody is an "agitator" in your opinion. Assault is assault, it doesn't matter if somebody was hurling words at you or getting close to your candidate, it's still assault.
It's easy to throw around the "agitator" excuse and start excluding those you don't like. It's a nice shortcut to a police state, or one that at least limits freedom of speech.
I bet you like those Free Speech zones too.
So you're comparing vandalism to freedom of expression without damaging anything?
Gestapo much?
Except she wasn't doing that, she was ramming her way through a crowd purposefully. Nice strawman.
But to your point, the one that wasn't a strawman, I actually agree with you.
It's just that when these F'ing idiots want to push it, and they get pushed back, I don't want to see any legal BS mumbo jumbo, no going on TV and whining, nothing.
You wanted to try and be a big badass, you wanted to push it, well, you got pushed back. Take it like man and don't be a p*ssy about it.
Chuck
No, merely comparing one form of douchery that damages property with another form of douchery that doesn't damage property, with both being performed by the same group of people - let's call them ticks since they are parasitic on the country.
You have the right to free speech. You do NOT have the right to have your picture taken with a candidate while holding an agitprop sign. Thanks for making Godwin proud though.
Are we watching the same video? In the one I watched here, the one PJIBBERJABBER linked on page 2, Rand Paul emerges from his vehicle and the camera tracks, following him to the left. At 0:07, the camera tracks back to the right and at 0:09 we catch a glimpse of someone in red; the camera moves in through the crowd and we get a full view of the person in red at 0:11, already being pushed forward and down by several men (PJIBBERJABBER's "femlib style football rush"); at no time does this person seem to be moving under her own volition. At 0:22, she has been pushed to the ground and one of the two brave men who have wrestled her to the ground places a foot on her shoulder while the other man holds her down. spidey's new favorite "Patriot" slides his foot forward and down, forcing the restrained woman's head against the pavement.
Is there another video? Am I missing something?