Well, I have seen the video several times, and you really don't need to tell me what I saw. Then again, since you saw something entirely different than what I saw, and what Mr Proffit admitted to, and what most other people saw, perhaps I should relay to you what your eyes have been deceiving you about. He placed his foot on her shoulder, not her back and not her head, and used downward force in a stomping motion, and when the stomping force was applied, his foot slid off her shoulder and landed on the side of her neck and head, forcing her head down onto the pavement. He did not place his foot on her back, or stomp on her shoulder, to keep her down, as she was already motionless and very securely restrained by the other men. He did it because his temper and frustrations got the better of him.You keep crying about the woman being stomped the man did not stomp on her he put his foot on her back (again not her head) and pushed her down and then used some pressure to help hold her down
To defend his actions is asinine, and everyone other than hard core conservatives who believe whatever they do is OK, proper and just, because it's them doing in, has condemned the actions of Proffit. Proffit and his fellow self-appointed "crowd control" officers put conservatives and conservatism in an extraordinarily bad light, just the same as those conservatives who yelled demeaned that goober pretending to be a homeless man protesting in support of universal health care. In both cases, conservative refuse to take responsibility for their actions and instead blame the luzers who yanked the conservative chain.
Ever see a kid go stomping off in disgust? Yeah, they look really silly jumping up and putting all their weight on one foot as they go stomping off. <snort>geez stomp would be to jump up and put all you weight on the one foot into her which he did not do
Stomp
Often confused with stamp (not to be confused with jump)
1. to strike or beat with a forcible, downward thrust of the foot.
2. to bring (the foot) down forcibly or smartly on the ground, floor, etc.
Two points, three actually... one, hypotheticals are easy. People always way things like that, and when a comparable situation crops up, it's always juuuust a little bit different enough to allow them to not eat their words. Two, she didn't do anything other than be part of the opposition. they knew her and knew what she was there for, and knew she posed no threat, and they were prepared to pounce, which they did. Three, liberal or conservative is irrelevant, those men had no "crowd control" authority whatsoever. Even using the barely plausible theory that they didn't know she posed no threat, she was fully restrained and non-combative before he put his foot on her. That cannot be defended.and yes I would defend a liberal if they were restraining some one doing something like this woman was doing
What do the Black Panthers have to do with all this? Other than nothing, I mean. I don't blanketly"defend" any group. To do so is blatantly bigoted or racist. I'll defend someone's actions, regardless of who they are, if their actions are defensible, but if their actions are indefensible I won't.ha thuggish behavior do you defend the Black Panthers ? now that is real thugs at work
I'm not defending the actions of this woman at all. Far from it. I think she showed up just to stir up trouble. But that's one issue, and the assault upon her is another. Her actions in no what whatsoever justified what they did.