more details of how 5 men assaulted MoveOn.org woman in street.

[JohnWxy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/26/lauren-valle-reveals-new-_n_774328.html


I have been at a bunch of events before, the previous debate, and the Rand Paul campaign knows me and they have expressed their distaste for my work before. What happened last night was that about five minutes before Rand Paul's car arrived they identified me and my partner, Alex, who was with me. They surrounded me. There was five of them. They motioned to each other and got behind me. My partner Alex heard them say 'We are here to do crowd control we might have to take someone out.'

When Rand Paul's car arrived a couple of them stepped in front of me so I stepped off the curb to get around them to get back out front. At that point they started grabbing for me and I ran all the way around the car with them in pursuit. The footage is after I've run all the way around the car and I'm in front of the car and that is when they took me down. One or two people twisted my arms behind my back and took me down... It was about two-to-three seconds after that that another person stomped on my head. And I lay there for 20 seconds or so and my partner Alex came and got me up and that's the point where there is the media clip of me speaking.

[pipoman]

1. As a previous private personal security

person. they did their jobs. In this age people who have been subjected to many death threats take their personal security pretty seriously, especially public figures.

When Rand Paul's car arrived a couple of them stepped in front of me so I stepped off the curb to get around them to get back out front.

What business did you have "out front"? I mean I'm no Paul fan..wouldn't know Rand if I ran him over, but why were you so dead set in getting into this guy's face?

[Hissyspit]

2. Bullshit.

Who did you work for? Blackwater? So you were a former member of a CRAPPY personal security service that violated people's rights?

[pipoman]

4. Why the personal attack?

Don't you know how to discuss civilly? Or do you just know I'm right and therefore have no coherent argument of a counter position...all you have left is attack and insult..hmmm

[Hissyspit]

29. It's not a personal attack. I'm attacking the ideas you expounded

in your OP. Sorry if you feel attacked, but, regardless, argument is not valid - the idea that because some private security service thinks this is acceptable/defesible, then it is. It's not.

Priggish was a volunteer committe coordinator, not pro security, anyway.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

87. "Sorry if you feel attacked"? Fuck, defending thuggery MUST be attacked!

[awoke_in_2003]

54. "personal security service"...

to me, that translates as "security guard" which actually means "cop wannabe".

[pipoman]

56. Personal security in this context is

paid armed body guard..never acted as a security guard in my life...just fyi

[Hassin Bin Sober]

93. LOL. Mall cop.

[kayakjohnny]

3. pipo dude, you just stepped in a pile of shit here.

Better take a better look before spouting off like that.

[pipoman]

5. Spouting off like what?

[kayakjohnny]

6. Like there was nothing she did in that video that warranted that kind of response.

And how do you know who was hired to do what, exactly?

[pipoman]

8. I suppose, technically, the quote is ambiguous..

the Rand Paul campaign knows me and they have expressed their distaste for my work before. What happened last night was that about five minutes before Rand Paul's car arrived they identified me and my partner, Alex, who was with me.

It would be reasonable to assume that he has private security,,maybe even public security, I don't know. I am relying on her own description of her actions. From her description of what happened the security people's response doesn't seem all that far out of line...don't like it? She should sue them, they undoubtedly have errors and omissions insurance of some sort. I still don't know hwy she was soooo intent on getting in this person's face.

[kayakjohnny]

12. I'm still not so intent that she was trying to get in this person's face.

I'm just not feeling it, or seeing it, or even sensing it. That is all. People have running squabbles all the time without it having come to this. Where was Rand during this? Wasn't he close enough to hear the commotion and be interested in the outcome?

These guys seemed to have an itchy trigger finger. Even the bystander saw it was wrong right away and told him to back off. And look how quickly he backed off. Right away. Like he knew he was being heavy-handed. And doing something wrong.

He got called on it immediately and backed down. He wouldn't have if he thought he was in the right. Please tell me you don't see that.

[pipoman]

16. Death threat recipient 101

avoid distractions at all cost.

Actually the video at the link didn't work for me. I was only going by her description. Additionally in her description she acknowledged she has made uncomplimentary writings and become known to Rand campaign. I don't know the content of these writings.

[kayakjohnny]

19. I guess we could do this all night. Except for the me part.

Watch the video when you are able, and then post your response. She was heavily out-gunned and the whole episode never needed to happen. If you can't see that, then I wonder what you're really trying to convey.

I'm not going to duke it out with you for the rest of the evening, just because I could.

Your mind seems made up.

As does mine.

I'd rather get on to something else now.

But I hope you didn't behave this way when you were in the biz.

The world just doesn't need another boot on another head at this point.

Regardless of the justifications.

[Hissyspit]

32. So the fuck what?

She has a confirmed concussion. He smacked her head into the pavement with his heel for NO reason and he had no business doing it.

[pipoman]

38. Maybe he should be criminally prosecuted..

[rury]

53. MAYBE he should be criminally prosecuted?

WTF?
Did you WATCH the video?
This goon stepped on this woman AFTER she was on the ground!!

[olegramps]

74. Now you think it was justified because she doesn't in your book have freedom of speech.

Anyone who is in a position to uphold the law should firstly be able to grasp and understand the Constitution and its guarantees of citizens' rights.

[mcollins]

99. In the video

it looks like she ran forward and tried to shove something into the open window of the car. I'm not sure what a private security team would do, but I am pretty sure what the Secret Service would do if some wing-nut tried to do that to the President.

Her first statements don't match up with the video. It makes us look bad when we augment what happened to make the other side look bad. We don't need to do that. They are already bad. THIS makes us look less than honest.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

88. Like defending thuggery.

[JohnWxy]

7. they assaulted someone on public property. They should be so charged and dealt with appropriately.

ZERO tolerance for Nazi politics.

(Whether they actually will be charged is something else again.)

[pipoman]

10. My point is non partisan

I doubt anyone identified as a political enemy of Howard Dean, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, or any other political figure regardless of party, who has personal security people or public security would fare any better if they were running around a car trying to get face to face with the person.

[geckosfeet]

11. Ahhh. I see. And after the un-resisted take down the head stomp was what - a subtle message?

[pipoman]

15. Since I wasn't there I wouldn't know

I certainly am not quite up to believing the word of a person so intent on getting up close to a politician as to risk personal injury. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be an investigation of criminal acts..I really would like to know for what reason a person would rush 5 security people to get closer to someone that one has disagreements with..

[Denzil_DC]

18. You are defending a goon who was caught ON CAMERA

literally stamping on the head of a woman who had already been wrestled roughly to the floor and was posing no risk to anyone.

Her statement about her "work" was to indicate that the Paul campaigners already knew her for a variety of nonviolent activities, so the idea that she was a "security threat" is laughable.

Why would you defend such a blatantly over-the-top act of aggression against a subdued person?

I've no idea where you worked as security, but I wouldn't hire you.

[pipoman]

23. As I said before, I didn't see the video, just going by the person's

description of her own actions.

[Denzil_DC]

24. Take a look at the video as soon as you can.

Then maybe you'll understand people's reactions to what you've posted here. The incident was disgusting. The goon is lucky he didn't do her permanent injury, and he looked like he would have carried on if someone hadn't shouted at him to stop

Being out of control in a situation like this is not something I'd expect a security pro to defend.

BTW, the police obviously think the goon has a case to answer - he's been served. And at least one lawyer thinks he's in BIG trouble: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/10/wheres_the_stompers_lawyer.php

[DisgustipatedinCA]

39. maybe you shouldn't post until you've seen the video

You're coming off as fairly uninformed and strident about something you clearly know nothing about. Because you admit you haven't seen the video but you still advocate for the piece of shit who needs to be sitting in jail, you sound as though you're just trying to push an authoritarian viewpoint. This may not be the best forum for you, as progressives tend away from this authoritarian stance.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipoman]

57. And I'll forgive Mr. 72 poster

for not knowing or not caring about the rules of this site...might not keep me from alerting on your silly post though..

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

89. I don't know what the deleted message said, but whatever it was, I agree with it. -nt

[geckosfeet]

60. they rushed her - she was trying to get away - watch the video and try

to continue to justify the foot to head.

I can almost sympathize with 'the protecting the candidate' meme, but they knew her and they know Moveon's peaceful non-violent tactics, and they knew that she did not represent a physical threat.

This was an assault. Not on the coward paul, but on personal freedom.

[olegramps]

75. Give it up. You are only making yourself look increasingly clueless.

[hedgehog]

68. Is Obama a personal enemy of Bohner? Is Biden a personal enemy

of McConnell? When did threatening to embarrass the candidate become such a grievous threat?

[niceypoo]

9. "I mean I'm no Paul fan..wouldn't know Rand if I ran him over, but"

LOL

[baldguy]

13. The thugs perpetrating the assault weren't working security for the Paul campaign.

[pipoman]

17. And if that is true then they should be criminally investigated..

[Exilednight]

14. They didn't do their jobs right ............

I don't care how much "experience" you think you have, but these guys were thugs - plain and simple.

Professional security never says "might have to take someone out".

Second, personal security has no right to detain a private citizen unless their is an eminent threat to the person they are protecting. Doing otherwise puts the personal security guard at risk of being arrested for kidnapping or possibly false imprisonment, not to mention assault.

[pipoman]

20. Ok

if you completely buy her story. I take exception with a couple of areas. For instance, from the link,

Valle said that she recognized the Paul supporters who went after her and felt frightened almost immediately after they claimed they were there to do "crowd control."

"When Rand Paul's car arrived a couple of them stepped in front of me so I stepped off the curb to get around them to get back out front"

People who "felt frightened almost immediately", don't defiantly step around those they fear..These types of incidents are sticky wickets which usually both sides are embellishing their stories.

[Denzil_DC]

22. Which justifies stamping on her head how? n/t

[kas125]

25. Your comments in this thread are probably the most disturbing

thing I've ever read on DU. Your defense of at least five men who were not hired security, just thugs in a crowd, throwing a little girl on the ground, stomping on, and injuring her is absolutely reprehensible!

[pipoman]

27. I guess you haven't read the thread then

nobody who can read and understand would come away with that assumption of my position unless they were just looking for boogy men

[kas125]

33. Oh, I read it and it made me sick to my stomach.

For you to say such things without even having watched the video is ridiculous. And I'm not the only one who thinks what you said is horrible, someone else asked if the security firm you worked for was Blackwater because that's sure as heck what you sound like here. Those thugs were not trained or even hired security guards, they were simply thugs in a crowd who decided that they didn't want the woman or her sign to be seen by Dr. Paul. The woman was no threat and they knew it, yet they assaulted her without provocation. Perhaps it's you who should go back and read the entire thread again because you are so, so wrong.

[leftynyc]

64. My only assumption is that you're speaking

from complete ignorance. Watch the video and then perhaps you can comment intelligenty.

[kas125]

37. Total bull. People who are activists most certainly DO step

around people who are blocking them, fearful or not. We do it all the time! There are not two sides to this story, there is only one. And that one is that a woman wanted to show her sign and perhaps get close enough to Dr. Paul to give him the award from Republicorps. The men in the crowd, who were not security guards, decided that she shouldn't be seen so they blocked her. When she attempted to go around them, they shoved her to the ground and stomped on her, leaving her with a sprained shoulder and a concussion. There are videos all over the internet and the video has been on every news show on tv all day and all night long, plus there are hundreds of articles about the incident online that you could have read if you'd chosen to. Instead, you continue to denigrate the woman and stand up for the thugs. Disgusting!

[pipoman]

41. At their own risk

if a crime was committed it should be prosecuted..people who choose to put themselves in harms way, regardless the reason nor how noble the cause can't really be too surprised when shit happens.

Look at my posts, I haven't read any of the other threads..I am a believer that a thread should stand on it's own merrit. The OP hasn't even bothered to revisit this thread yet.

[kas125]

43. You don't read other threads, you don't watch the video, you

don't read the news articles, yet you feel you're qualified to pass judgment. That tells me all I need to know about you and I'm finished with this conversation.

[ProSense]

21. It never ends

"I mean I'm no Paul fan...but"

"I'm no Rand Paul fan, but that Aqua Budha ad was the lowest"

"I'm no Rand Paul fan, but his father did oppose the Iraq war."

"I'm no Rand Paul fan, but he's going to win."

"I'm no Rand Paul fan, but this assault was justified."



I'm no Rand Paul fan, and he is a kook!

[KT2000]

26. they knew her

from previous events. They knew she was not there to harm him.

As a personal security person your efforts should not be used to stop politicking.

The police department would not have done what those thugs did.

Sometimes private security people have an inflated view of their duties - they are not the Secret Service you know.

[pipoman]

28. Yet still nobody has answered

why she felt it so important to get as close as possible to this guy.

If you read all of my responses you will see we don't really disagree on your last sentence.

[Hissyspit]

30. She wanted to make sure her message was personally received by Paul.

And that those around saw that her message was received. Pretty simple. I saw her on Olbermann and she explained itclearly and reasonably.

[Denzil_DC]

31. Because she's an activist and a demonstrator

And by all accounts a very brave woman. That's well documented in a number of threads on DU, many of which carry the footage you for some reason haven't seen.

There's even a GIF of the moment of foot contact with head/neck:



Now, does her being a demonstrator justify stamping on her head?

I still don't get why you're so keen to give the benefit of the doubt to these thugs, but apparently none to the victim of the assault.

[pipoman]

35. It don't look good

and certainly doesn't look like a pro security move. I tried again to look at the video at the link, now it says it has been removed.

[backscatter712]

50. Here's another Youtube of the incident...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhjg2W7vlMc

[pipoman]

58. Thanks

it certainly looks like the moron with the white shoes should be charged as well as anyone else who was not paid security who took it upon themselves to take her to the ground.

[olegramps]

76. Why in hell can't you just admit you don't know anything about the rights of citizens.

[uponit7771]

34. Free country, she can move close to him and if he doesn't like it he can move away. She did not stop

...him from getting to where he needed to go.

Also, be a security person does NOT mean someone can ignore the law in regards to assualting someone

[pipoman]

36. Most states allow

for a circle of security for anyone who can afford to produce the circle. Like it or not, it is true that we are all responsible for our own security and people who feel threatened are likely to buy a level of security.

That said if this wasn't a security detail and just political rally rage...that is another story

[uponit7771]

40. "circle of security" does not mean they can kidnap, assualt or unlawfully detain people. They dont

...get to pick and choose when the law can be applied.

What happens if they try this stuff in right to carry state?

Detaining someone for asking questions doesn't seem like it's life threatening.

Security doesn't mean someone can break the law...

[pipoman]

42. Apparently these guys weren't

paid security which makes things different, and probably criminal.

Most security people will accept some contact by people even though the contact is technically unlawful. If the contact is in the form of a push which wasn't the result of crowd push, I would push back with more force and people would usually back off. If it was the result of crowd push, security should suck it up and try to keep the push off of the subject of the security.

[leftynyc]

65. Nobody is answering that moronic question

because it doesn't matter. You want to believe these schmucks had reason to fear this woman and that is simply not the case.

[JustAnotherGen]

77. She wanted to

Take a picture with him and her Republicorp. sign.


She wanted to express her first Amendment Rights. It. Is. Simple.

[backscatter712]

44. A few things.

1. WATCH THE VIDEO!!! It's not that hard.

2. These goons were not professional security personnel. Tim Profitt, the stomper, was a volunteer county coordinator for the Rand Paul campaign, not a bouncer, not an off-duty cop, not a trained security professional.

3. That lack of training showed, when Profitt stomped this woman in the head AFTER she was already wrestled to the ground, giving her a concussion. Waaaaaaay out of line, not something anyone with training would do, and something that damned well should land him in prison for aggravated assault.

[pipoman]

47. 1) I'm on a satellite

it is not always easy to download files as it is on cable or dsl.

2) I am getting they were political nuts (maybe all of those involved)

3) We agree that he should be prosecuted if things are as it sounds. Nobody, except maybe someone with a previous record or on parole would go to prison for this, a little jail and a criminal record maybe.

[backscatter712]

48. Now you're starting to understand the facts.

Do watch the video if you can - it's available on Youtube, which means that over a slow satellite connection, you'll have to wait a while for it to buffer, but you'll eventually be able to watch it.

Yes, these were pretty much political nuts. One, Profitt, was a volunteer county coordinator for the Rand Paul campaign, and the others were pretty much just regular Tea-Partiers, maybe low-level volunteers (doesn't take much - I'm volunteering for Michael Bennet, all you have to do is show up.)

And the video shows several grown men tackling this woman, throwing her to the ground, then shows Profitt stomping on her head. She ended up with bruises and swelling, a sprained shoulder and a concussion. It very easily could have been far worse - the stomp was similar to the curbstomp from American History X, with the only difference being that she wasn't forced to bite the curb first.

[pipoman]

61. I was finally able to see the whole vid this AM

has the idiot(s) been charged yet?

[backscatter712]

70. I believe he's already been served with a criminal summons.

I think that means he's going to be charged with assault & battery.

[bindelh]

49. I'm not sure why you are here?

Why are you here Pip?

Why did you choose this thread and not another?

IMWTK

[pipoman]

67. I'm not sure why you insist on posting in bold..

[vaberella]

52. This article doesn't go into the details so many other articles go into. n/t

[vaberella]

51. You realize they weren't private security right?!

They took it upon themselves to do that, and there was plenty of police there. The police knew they couldn't touch her since we do have a right to peaceful assembly even in times of protest. These people were acting on their own and stepped on her head, another one blatantly groped her and wrestled her to the ground and you have another who knew the stepping and groping guy were going to far and told them to back off.


Dude, you can't justify this.

[pipoman]

59. I do now...

[backscatter712]

71. Thank you for being open-minded!

We get precious little of that in political forums, so they do often turn into flame wars, but I appreciate you taking the time to look at things rather than just perpetuating the flamefest.

:hi:

[chemenger]

66. It took five men to take down one woman ???

Including one to stomp on her after she's down. They obviously really suck at their "private personal security" jobs.

Your ass they were just doing their jobs ... 5 guys to take down 1 woman ... that was assault (occasioning actual bodily harm)and battery pure and simple. Its on film and I hope the judge holds them over for prosecution.

[mkultra]

69. you should know that assualt is illegal

[olegramps]

72. Are you serious?

I have never heard such utter nonsense in my life. Who in the hell do you think you are that you have the right to deny a person constitutional right to free assembly.

[polichick]

73. What about her right to free speech? She wasn't a danger to the candidate. nt

[niceypoo]

78. The crowd did their jobs?

By attacking, beating, and stomping someone?

WTF?

[bemildred]

80. I would not think that Mr Paul would be too happy with them right now.

I would think he would have preferred avoiding all this fuss.

[lunatica]

81. stomping someone's head into the sidewalk is standard operating procedure?

Someone who is seen to be armed with a sign?

[xxqqqzme]

83. If you saw Valle last night on

Countdown you would know her actions were in line with the previous two weeks of activities She explained her actions were not to confront Paul but to get the 'RepubliCorp Employee of the Month' sign in the frame w/ Paul. This is not an uncommon tactic (witness people standing behind any person w/ a microphone waving to the camera). The thugs were NOT 'security' but volunteers pumped up by their own self appointed importance. They were aware of Valle's motivation. They are thugs and their actions were deliberate. There is no defense. This is becoming rethuglican SOP. Take out anyone who disagrees w/ you.

[golfguru]

45. I wish Robert Kennedy's security was as pro-active

as Rand Paul's was then history would have been
completely changed course, and Nixon would never
have been the president and Watergate would have
remained just an address.

[Hissyspit]

55. This is NOTHING like that.

[golfguru]

84. May be not exactly like that but....

I would rather have important candidates/persons be protected
from undeterminable threats. You never know when some
unbalanced individual could take a pot shot at them.

Examples: Gandhi was assassinated by a man posing as one
of his followers. Gandhi had zero security persons around
him.

Beatle John was killed near his hotel entrance. He could
have been saved by a security guard detail.

Reagan was shot at close range by this young guy trying
to impress his infatuation with some actress. A stricter
security envelope would have avoided that incident.

Like it or not there are crazy & unstable people walking
amongst us.

[Hissyspit]

91. And like it or not there is a First Amendment to our constitution.

[golfguru]

95. First amendment restricts you from yelling fire in a theater

so there are limits to even the first amendment.

[Hissyspit]

96. She wasn't yelling fire in a theater.

Not even close.

She was attempting to speak to a candidate for public office. And was attacked by thugs who didn't like her politics.

[golfguru]

97. If she did not threaten anyone

why did they attack her? Why was she singled out?
I am not familiar with details of this incident.
In general speak, I am in favor of protecting candidates.

[CBGLuthier]

62. What a stupid fucking comment

[Cleobulus]

63. Are you fucking stupid? n/t

[niceypoo]

79. Republicans in the crowd are 'Rand Pauls security' ?

Bizarre

[Skittles]

85. I am guessing this is sarcasm

either that or you believe in fascism

[golfguru]

86. I really believe that ALL political leaders must be

protected. Especially the high level ones.
There is no excuse for slip shod security.
When a VIP gets shot at, the impression spreads'around the world that US is a barbaric, gun infested country. And you can't deny that there are many unstable people walking around
with access to guns.

[Skittles]

90. I would say the looniest people

are the ones "protecting" assholes like Rand

[Exilednight]

92. First, I wouldn't call Rand a political leader. He hasn't been elected to anything, and ...........

he sure as hell is not a leader.

Second, what does it say about our Democracy that we can't even ask questions to the people who are running for office.

I understand protecting the president, and I also understand that some political leaders are threatened and might require protection based on threats, but I find that more and more of our elected candidates are placed in a bubble and out of the public eye.

Often, when you e-mail a Rep or Senator, you get an automated response. Call your Congressman and the odds of you actually talking to that person is slim to none. Citizens attending Town Hall meetings are often pre-screened and questions are usually required to be submitted for approval in advance.

But, I bet if I had a few million lying around in my bank account, or represented some large conglomerate or group of corporations, that I would get personalized responses and my phone calls would be returned and I would probably get face to face meetings for hours at a time with anyone in Congress, whether they represent my district or not.

Personally, I would make it against the law for any Rep running for office to accept money from anyone outside of their district, and forbid candidates running for the Senate from accepting money from any person who is not in their state, or corporation that is not HQed in their state.

[golfguru]

94. When a candidate becomes a nominee, he/she

becomes entitled to security protection. Nominees
of either party for president even get Secret Service protection.
They are not elected to anything either.

[Exilednight]

98. You're talking about the presidency which is much different .........

than Reps and Senators. Obama had zero Secret Service protection prior to running for the presidency. Now it seems to be all the rage with these candidates.

One of the things that I do find quite interesting is that former presidents are no longer granted lifetime secret service protection. Clinton was the last one to be awarded such. Now, starting with Bush jr, presidents are only offered protection for around 6 years after office. VPs automatically lose secret service protection once leaving office, except Cheney who was, last I heard, granted a one year protection detail.

I understand the need for protection at campaign rallies and such, there are some real nutjobs out there, but at what point does security outweigh OUR access to OUR elected officials.

We live in a representative democracy, and one thing that this form of government is suppose to provide is access and participation in government.

[mstinamotorcity]

82. Why would any politician

need any type of security if they are not the President. I do understand in this day and age that there are threats. But as a politician, your message to the people should not be one of discourse. If the candidate's message was so on point as to what the people want, why is the need for security??? I have asked this question about Glen Beckish,Rush Limpdick, and others. If you feel so bad and brave with your message,why the body guards?? I do understand that Mayor, Governors,and the President and other political officials have security teams,but when you need a security team to cover your ass because you have talked hate speech out of your mouth, you should be ready to back it up with your ass. Not stand behind your microphones and bodyguards to signify you are a bad ass. Some I would like to see on the street without their security teams-Mitch McConnell,Michele Bachmann,Glen Beckish,Spannitty,Rush Limpdick,Thaddeus McCotter talking their beautiful tea bag repug i want my country back selfs.