Video: Rand Paul Supporter Stomps Head Of Female UPDATED

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86

I'm sorry, but that whole response sounds faked.

Seriously.

Pretty much every bullet point "advice" listed at the bottom, applies equally so to "the other side".

The response just does not make sense. I saw the video, this guy was caught up in the moment, did something stupid, but in the end caused no harm to her. To see this response: "Volunteer to serve in a women's abuse shelter, rape crisis center or home for abused children. Then and only then will you understand why it is our society is so repulsed by your behavior and what it leads to."

That connection just is not there, except in the mind of activists. I don't jump to the conclusion that the video is pro-women abusing propaganda. I don't see where this leads to anything described in the response.


Basically, the whole response seemed to boil down to this: if it were a male who charged Rand Paul, then there would be no "incident", no foul play.


"This type of hysterical overly exaggerated expression is nothing more than mob riot."
-There was no mob riot in the video.


"You have served to point out the severity and potential danger of this extreme movement that is enjoys protection under the umbrella of "Tea Party""
-What the fuck is that line? That rally was not an extreme movement. Show me the severity and danger caused by the Tea Party? And why is Tea Party in quotes?



This response seems to be taking the stance that this guy uses the Tea Party as an excuse to promote violence against women, which I guess I just have to say "I don't get it". Yes we can go over all the lines "One should never harm a woman, one should never lay his hands (or feet) on another..." Something's not right.




And who ends a response with "Reevaluate who it is you support for office - may I suggest you support someone such as myself who isn't willing to tell you what it is you want to hear to get your vote."

If you want to get into the whole political spin game, this person just advocated for the support of women abusers to help get elected. But of course that's not what she is trying to do. That message was never intended for this guy to read. That message was purposely intended for the voting community as a whole to read. Hence her response is nothing more than a political campaign strategy solely pandering to her base for votes in next year's election.


Sorry, Craig, but seems you fell for propaganda yet again ;)
 
Last edited:

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
That's the media for you...many think the tea party is all about crazy folks, dressing up in silly costumes and causing anarchy.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,866
1,515
126
404 Headstomp not found

Headstomp.JPG
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
404 Headstomp not found

Headstomp.JPG
From watching the film it's obvious that he never stomped her head, although some here think his foot grazed her head on the way to her shoulder. (Throck's shot is his foot moving sideways OVER her head, not stomping ON her head.) Her head went down; I think it's from the guy holding her down reacting to her attempts to get up, but you really can't tell for certain either way. He definitely pushed down on her shoulder hard enough to make her head strike the pavement; not hard enough to leave a mark, but you can see her reach up and resettle her glasses where they struck the pavement.

And he still needs to be prosecuted for that. I have no problem with them taking her down, but she was completely restrained when he placed his foot on her. You don't get to bounce someone's head off the pavement, however gently, simply because she's an irritating left wing loon and you are frustrated that she spoiled your special moment. So whether he "stomped her head" or that's complete propaganda, he still needs to be held accountable for his actions.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,866
1,515
126
From watching the film it's obvious that he never stomped her head, although some here think his foot grazed her head on the way to her shoulder. (Throck's shot is his foot moving sideways OVER her head, not stomping ON her head.) Her head went down; I think it's from the guy holding her down reacting to her attempts to get up, but you really can't tell for certain either way. He definitely pushed down on her shoulder hard enough to make her head strike the pavement; not hard enough to leave a mark, but you can see her reach up and resettle her glasses where they struck the pavement.

And he still needs to be prosecuted for that. I have no problem with them taking her down, but she was completely restrained when he placed his foot on her. You don't get to bounce someone's head off the pavement, however gently, simply because she's an irritating left wing loon and you are frustrated that she spoiled your special moment. So whether he "stomped her head" or that's complete propaganda, he still needs to be held accountable for his actions.

I agree that he definitely forced his foot down a second time after she was already on the ground. If he really wanted to hurt her, he could have easily done more damage by 'stomping' or 'kicking' harder.

However, I am sure she knew to ham it up for the cameras once she knew she was on her way to the ground.

She definitely got the publicity she was looking for and the liberal sheeple here fell for it hook, line and sinker...
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I agree that he definitely forced his foot down a second time after she was already on the ground. If he really wanted to hurt her, he could have easily done more damage by stomping or kicking harder.

However, I am she she knew to ham it up for the cameras once she knew she was on her way to the ground.

She definitely got the publicity she was looking for and the liberal sheeple here fell for it hook, line and sinker...

She's a professional left wing agitator; she knows to fight hard enough to incite violence, then go limp while camera rolls. This is what she does. Still, she has her rights, and no matter how repugnant I find her behavior (her appearance is a different matter, she's actually cute) the law needs to impartially police HIS behavior as well as hers. It should be for a jury to decide whether to indict and whether to convict, the prosecutor needs to do his or her job and send it to the grand jury.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,866
1,515
126
She's a professional left wing agitator; she knows to fight hard enough to incite violence, then go limp while camera rolls. This is what she does. Still, she has her rights, and no matter how repugnant I find her behavior (her appearance is a different matter, she's actually cute) the law needs to impartially police HIS behavior as well as hers. It should be for a jury to decide whether to indict and whether to convict, the prosecutor needs to do his or her job and send it to the grand jury.

Agree totally...
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
I agree that he definitely forced his foot down a second time after she was already on the ground.

So you agree you are arguing semantics and have the view you do based on your preconceived notions about liberals, communists, terrorists, gun control, abortion, the death penalty, church, the defense industry and racism against whites.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,866
1,515
126
So you agree you are arguing semantics and have the view you do based on your preconceived notions about liberals, communists, terrorists, gun control, abortion, the death penalty, church, the defense industry and racism against whites.

You and your ilk are claiming he 'stomped' on her head which is nowhere near what happened.

Why dont you watch the video without your partisan glasses on to see what really happened.

Yes, you can see his leg motions in the video. I have made my conclusion based on what I saw. It appears that your conclusion mirrors the soccer photo I linked which is laughable at best.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,866
1,515
126
Because you posted a screenshot from a point where his foot wasn't on her head.

The frame I captured is when is his leg is in the down motion....on the frame you captured, his leg is moving across her, not up and down...

Kudos to you!!!
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
spacejamz: Is your life so boring you must argue such trivial crap? The dude put his foot on her. Thats the end. I dont care about head stomps. This issue is so tiny how many people do you think will care about this in 2 years? 10 years? 100 years?
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,866
1,515
126
spacejamz: Is your life so boring you must argue such trivial crap? The dude put his foot on her. Thats the end. I dont care about head stomps. This issue is so tiny how many people do you think will care about this in 2 years? 10 years? 100 years?

Just following your lead...

And for the umpteenth time, this was NOT a head stomp...Shoulder stomp, yes...but I guess that doesn't sound as controversial....

Wait...now I see why you want this to be a head stomp so bad....well played sir!!!
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Just following your lead...

And for the umpteenth time, this was NOT a head stomp...Shoulder stomp, yes...but I guess that doesn't sound as controversial....

Wait...now I see why you want this to be a head stomp so bad....well played sir!!!

My lead? I'm not even arguing anything in this thread. I came here to talk about your stupidity. You are unbalanced.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
So you agree you are arguing semantics and have the view you do based on your preconceived notions about liberals, communists, terrorists, gun control, abortion, the death penalty, church, the defense industry and racism against whites.

Whether or not he "Stomped on her head" is not semantics, it's the heart of the issue. Arguing that he stepped on head rather than stomped on her head would be semantics. In this case it's clear he did neither; the only argument is whether or not his foot grazed her head while moving across it. (And maybe the occasional person arguing that he did nothing wrong.)