Stomping Rand Paul Supporter Wants Victim To Apologize To Him

[Meister]

You are able to tell that she doesn't 'really means it'? How?

Because most people who sincerely want to avoid violence, don't agitate and commit acts of violence.

Here's how it works. People who sincerely believe a position have a right to express that position without being physically attacked. To portray putting a sign in the window of a passing car as an act of 'violence' is absurd. If she were a legitimate threat, then only the actions of the first person that pulled her away would be acceptable. Profitt's actions were NOT.

Profitt's act was not acceptable, nor were hers. People do have a right to express their opinion in a nonviolent way. That's how it works. Shoving a sign through the window into the face of Paul was an act of violence. Just not to some left wing nut like yourself.

 

[Sallow]

Because most people who sincerely want to avoid violence, don't agitate and commit acts of violence.

Here's how it works. People who sincerely believe a position have a right to express that position without being physically attacked. To portray putting a sign in the window of a passing car as an act of 'violence' is absurd. If she were a legitimate threat, then only the actions of the first person that pulled her away would be acceptable. Profitt's actions were NOT.

Profitt's act was not acceptable, nor were hers. Shoving a sign through the window into the face of Paul was an act of violence. Just not to some left wing nut like yourself.

No it is not.

And to the best of my knowledge (and I am no lawyer) it has not been codified as such and is protected speech.

 

[Meister]

Here's how it works. People who sincerely believe a position have a right to express that position without being physically attacked. To portray putting a sign in the window of a passing car as an act of 'violence' is absurd. If she were a legitimate threat, then only the actions of the first person that pulled her away would be acceptable. Profitt's actions were NOT.

Profitt's act was not acceptable, nor were hers. Shoving a sign through the window into the face of Paul was an act of violence. Just not to some left wing nut like yourself.

No it is not.

And to the best of my knowledge (and I am no lawyer) it has not been codified as such and is protected speech.

Codified? Get your lazy ass to back up the "Codified" where it's legal to shove a sign through a window in the face of a person. If you can't find your silly ass "codified" STFU! You haven't a clue on what your talking about and you look down right silly trying to justify it. Now get to work and back up your statement.

 

[Intense]

She did. It's a shame that she doesn't really mean it. Might have had more credibility if she wasnt being violent as well.

You are able to tell that she doesn't 'really means it'? How?

Because most people who sincerely want to avoid violence, don't agitate and commit acts of violence.

She may have come into that realization as a result of the incident. I think she did. It is real important to consider how easily people can get hurt at these events, and behave accordingly.

On 8/28 Al Sharpton's Demonstrators planned to march on the Beck Rally, the potential for harm on all sides was very high. Al did change the plan. That was a very wise and prudent decision on his part. I do admire him for that. He put safety first. There will alway's be things beyond our control. Contingency is always important.

 

[Bfgrn]

Profitt's act was not acceptable, nor were hers. Shoving a sign through the window into the face of Paul was an act of violence. Just not to some left wing nut like yourself.

No it is not.

And to the best of my knowledge (and I am no lawyer) it has not been codified as such and is protected speech.

Codified? Get your lazy ass to back up the "Codified" where it's legal to shove a sign through a window in the face of a person. If you can't find your silly ass "codified" STFU! You haven't a clue on what your talking about and you look down right silly trying to justify it. Now get to work and back up your statement.

The video does not prove she tried to shove a sign through a window in the face of a Rand Paul. If you watch the video in slow motion, it appears she realizes the sign is facing the wrong way and flips it so the writing is facing Paul. Immediately a man comes between her and the vehicle and we can't see his hands or if the edge of the sign caught part of the moving vehicle and effected the movement of the sign. At no point does Paul appear to be in danger.

What The Media and The Left Won’t Tell You About Lauren Valle - Big Journalism

 

[Intense]

No it is not.

And to the best of my knowledge (and I am no lawyer) it has not been codified as such and is protected speech.

Codified? Get your lazy ass to back up the "Codified" where it's legal to shove a sign through a window in the face of a person. If you can't find your silly ass "codified" STFU! You haven't a clue on what your talking about and you look down right silly trying to justify it. Now get to work and back up your statement.

The video does not prove she tried to shove a sign through a window in the face of a Rand Paul. If you watch the video in slow motion, it appears she realizes the sign is facing the wrong way and flips it so the writing is facing Paul. Immediately a man comes between her and the vehicle and we can't see his hands or if the edge of the sign caught part of the moving vehicle and effected the movement of the sign. At no point does Paul appear to be in danger.

What The Media and The Left Won’t Tell You About Lauren Valle - Big Journalism

A perceived threat is a perceived threat. It's about acting responsibly on all sides.

 

[Bfgrn]

Codified? Get your lazy ass to back up the "Codified" where it's legal to shove a sign through a window in the face of a person. If you can't find your silly ass "codified" STFU! You haven't a clue on what your talking about and you look down right silly trying to justify it. Now get to work and back up your statement.

The video does not prove she tried to shove a sign through a window in the face of a Rand Paul. If you watch the video in slow motion, it appears she realizes the sign is facing the wrong way and flips it so the writing is facing Paul. Immediately a man comes between her and the vehicle and we can't see his hands or if the edge of the sign caught part of the moving vehicle and effected the movement of the sign. At no point does Paul appear to be in danger.

What The Media and The Left Won’t Tell You About Lauren Valle - Big Journalism

A perceived threat is a perceived threat. It's about acting responsibly on all sides.

A perceived 'threat' doesn't hold up in court. I believe these are more than a perceived threat, they show intent, what about you?

 

[Sallow]

Profitt's act was not acceptable, nor were hers. Shoving a sign through the window into the face of Paul was an act of violence. Just not to some left wing nut like yourself.

No it is not.

And to the best of my knowledge (and I am no lawyer) it has not been codified as such and is protected speech.

Codified? Get your lazy ass to back up the "Codified" where it's legal to shove a sign through a window in the face of a person. If you can't find your silly ass "codified" STFU! You haven't a clue on what your talking about and you look down right silly trying to justify it. Now get to work and back up your statement.

I'll tell you what. You back up what you said.

And I will just stick with the Constitution.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Bolded for the stupid.

It's legal as HELL to hold up a sign in someone's face.

 

[Meister]

No it is not.

And to the best of my knowledge (and I am no lawyer) it has not been codified as such and is protected speech.

Codified? Get your lazy ass to back up the "Codified" where it's legal to shove a sign through a window in the face of a person. If you can't find your silly ass "codified" STFU! You haven't a clue on what your talking about and you look down right silly trying to justify it. Now get to work and back up your statement.

The video does not prove she tried to shove a sign through a window in the face of a Rand Paul. If you watch the video in slow motion, it appears she realizes the sign is facing the wrong way and flips it so the writing is facing Paul. Immediately a man comes between her and the vehicle and we can't see his hands or if the edge of the sign caught part of the moving vehicle and effected the movement of the sign. At no point does Paul appear to be in danger.

What The Media and The Left Won’t Tell You About Lauren Valle - Big Journalism

Your in denial. More than half that sign is in through the window and Paul has his hand up stopping it. In this thread I have posted the definition of "simple assault". Look for it and have a learning moment on the law......if you dare.

 

[Intense]

The video does not prove she tried to shove a sign through a window in the face of a Rand Paul. If you watch the video in slow motion, it appears she realizes the sign is facing the wrong way and flips it so the writing is facing Paul. Immediately a man comes between her and the vehicle and we can't see his hands or if the edge of the sign caught part of the moving vehicle and effected the movement of the sign. At no point does Paul appear to be in danger.

What The Media and The Left Won’t Tell You About Lauren Valle - Big Journalism

A perceived threat is a perceived threat. It's about acting responsibly on all sides.

A perceived 'threat' doesn't hold up in court. I believe these are more than a perceived threat, they show intent, what about you?

Typical of both sides, in one way or another.

 

[Modbert]

Your in denial. More than half that sign is in through the window and Paul has his hand up stopping it. In this thread I have posted the definition of "simple assault". Look for it and have a learning moment on the law......if you dare.

No offense Meister, but you keep bringing up the poster incident as if that justifies what this man did. What the woman did and what this man did are two entirely different things.

 

[Intense]

What is your take on this message?


The Uptake: Senator Al Franken at Dayton Rally | Al Franken - U.S. Senator, Minnesota

 

[Meister]

No it is not.

And to the best of my knowledge (and I am no lawyer) it has not been codified as such and is protected speech.

Codified? Get your lazy ass to back up the "Codified" where it's legal to shove a sign through a window in the face of a person. If you can't find your silly ass "codified" STFU! You haven't a clue on what your talking about and you look down right silly trying to justify it. Now get to work and back up your statement.

I'll tell you what. You back up what you said.

And I will just stick with the Constitution.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Bolded for the stupid.

It's legal as HELL to hold up a sign in someone's face.

I'll tell you what, Sallow....you opened up YOUR piehole and made a statement...back it up.

SHOW ME WHERE STICKING A SIGN THROUGH A WINDOW INTO THE FACE OF A PERSON IS COMPLETELY LEGAL. You said it...back it up, or STFU!

 

[Meister]

Your in denial. More than half that sign is in through the window and Paul has his hand up stopping it. In this thread I have posted the definition of "simple assault". Look for it and have a learning moment on the law......if you dare.

No offense Meister, but you keep bringing up the poster incident as if that justifies what this man did. What the woman did and what this man did are two entirely different things.

No offense Modbert, nowhere I have I ever stated that it was an excuse to get the foot stomp. Not once. What I'm saying and always have said that if she had her sign and stayed where she should have stayed she would have had no problems...instead she stepped through toward the vehicle and ended up putting the sign through open window into the face of Paul where he had his hand up blocking the advancement of the sign. That is all I'm saying. Profitt should be convicted of a crime when it goes to court.
Why do you lefties justify what she did? It was wrong, you know it, but no one except Bo admitted the lady did wrong.

 

[Bfgrn]

Codified? Get your lazy ass to back up the "Codified" where it's legal to shove a sign through a window in the face of a person. If you can't find your silly ass "codified" STFU! You haven't a clue on what your talking about and you look down right silly trying to justify it. Now get to work and back up your statement.

The video does not prove she tried to shove a sign through a window in the face of a Rand Paul. If you watch the video in slow motion, it appears she realizes the sign is facing the wrong way and flips it so the writing is facing Paul. Immediately a man comes between her and the vehicle and we can't see his hands or if the edge of the sign caught part of the moving vehicle and effected the movement of the sign. At no point does Paul appear to be in danger.

What The Media and The Left Won’t Tell You About Lauren Valle - Big Journalism

Your in denial. More than half that sign is in through the window and Paul has his hand up stopping it. In this thread I have posted the definition of "simple assault". Look for it and have a learning moment on the law......if you dare.

If any of the sign is through the window (it can't be determined from the angle the video) it is not half. As the sign is pushed away (it appears) by the guy walking next to the vehicle, Valle's hand is still holding the bottom of the sign. For half the sign to be through the window, Valle would have to be leaning inside the vehicle, she is not. What you call Paul's hand is a shadow.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM[/ame]

 

[Intense]

Part of the sign went in the window. It was a perceived threat.

 

[Meister]

The video does not prove she tried to shove a sign through a window in the face of a Rand Paul. If you watch the video in slow motion, it appears she realizes the sign is facing the wrong way and flips it so the writing is facing Paul. Immediately a man comes between her and the vehicle and we can't see his hands or if the edge of the sign caught part of the moving vehicle and effected the movement of the sign. At no point does Paul appear to be in danger.

What The Media and The Left Won’t Tell You About Lauren Valle - Big Journalism

Your in denial. More than half that sign is in through the window and Paul has his hand up stopping it. In this thread I have posted the definition of "simple assault". Look for it and have a learning moment on the law......if you dare.

If any of the sign is through the window (it can't be determined from the angle the video) it is not half. As the sign is pushed away (it appears) by the guy walking next to the vehicle, Valle's hand is still holding the bottom of the sign. For half the sign to be through the window, Valle would have to be leaning inside the vehicle, she is not. What you call Paul's hand is a shadow.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM[/ame]

Might want to check you glasses.....it's very clear in the slow-mo what happened...that sign is through the window. Stevie Wonder would admit to that.

 

[Intense]

I think she would too.

 

[Bfgrn]

Your in denial. More than half that sign is in through the window and Paul has his hand up stopping it. In this thread I have posted the definition of "simple assault". Look for it and have a learning moment on the law......if you dare.

If any of the sign is through the window (it can't be determined from the angle the video) it is not half. As the sign is pushed away (it appears) by the guy walking next to the vehicle, Valle's hand is still holding the bottom of the sign. For half the sign to be through the window, Valle would have to be leaning inside the vehicle, she is not. What you call Paul's hand is a shadow.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM[/ame]

Might want to check you glasses.....it's very clear in the slow-mo what happened...that sign is through the window. Stevie Wonder would admit to that.

Watch the video from 24 sec to 28 sec (the slow motion portion). You can even stop it frame by frame....Stevie.

 

[Meister]

If any of the sign is through the window (it can't be determined from the angle the video) it is not half. As the sign is pushed away (it appears) by the guy walking next to the vehicle, Valle's hand is still holding the bottom of the sign. For half the sign to be through the window, Valle would have to be leaning inside the vehicle, she is not. What you call Paul's hand is a shadow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM

Might want to check you glasses.....it's very clear in the slow-mo what happened...that sign is through the window. Stevie Wonder would admit to that.

Watch the video from 24 sec to 28 sec (the slow motion portion). You can even stop it frame by frame....Stevie.

Stevie just called me and said he too saw the sign through the window before she was restrained. She's no angel, she is no saint, but she should have never been stomped on bfgrn. That's the bottom line....and all that I'm trying to state.