Anti-War Protestor Assaults Girl in Wheelchair

There was more to that video than just he was pummeled, I actually stated why I pointed you to it, the time to look for, nothing did I say was it done to say he was pummeled.

Not a beating of a wheel chair bound female as originally laid out in this thread.

No we do not know what happened, I however do not buy for one minute a guy who just supposedly beat the hell out of a wheel chair bound female is going to have one relaxed cop, mention only 'possible assault' the charges sure appear to be from where he was at and not actions, plus no rally around this guy shouting and hollering. I mean come on I just do not buy it one bit. If a guy hit a wheel chair bound female at any gathering I have ever been at civilians would be around him yelling, it would not go down as it did.

Actually I believe I have said as much, I however will go to the one point, how it goes at the end surely does not appear to be a guy who punched a wheel chair bound female. Could I be wrong? Surely I could be. If I was on a jury could I use this footage to decide for myself? I could and would.

 

Being that the guy is retarded himself made it difficult for the police to do anything to him. The alex jones show video really made it obvious just how mentally challenged he is.

If he did assault a girl (wheelchair or not) I hope he gets his reward. If not, I hope the truth comes out either way.

 

I agree debunked, even though the girl worships the Bush family confused if he was guilty then he deserves all he gets, the evidence is not very compelling though.

Kind of like this incident when some MEP fool falls on his arse and they try and blame the troofers.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/042108_gang_assaults.htm

 

Ah yes, the typical anti-intellectual Ad Hominem. Great job debunked! Silence dissent and discovery!

 

OK, Grim, in terms of whether the guy beat anybody, I think you're probably right. Personally, from what we do have, I don't think either "thing" happened. We may never know. So, I return to my main point, which is that I won't be posting conjecture as fact. No statement of "assaulting peacenik" or "neo con brownshirt assault" holds any water with me, yet.

Edit: However, curious about new developments, I did just come across this, which I find interesting, in terms of misdemeanors and the law. I wasn't aware of the technical issues involved (legal distinctions):

http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=4418

(Yes, anti-troofer site. Please go with what's on the page, as one would do to consider info from any polemic website).

Be interesting to see how this thing plays out.

 

I am not a lawyer, I however know for a fact from multiple items I have read and witnessed before that a police officer will still arrest someone even if he did not witness it with conflicting statements. Hell watch cops one night.

I agree we do not know what the facts are, that article however makes me lean more towards it being absolute load of crap.

Further more, yet again according to the video it was only a 'possible' assault, more from where he was and more than likely from what I viewed he got charges from his insistence on constitutional protections.

Without some actual information these pages 'I totally agree with you here' are absolute rubbish.

 

Grim, I have watched cops. As I said, I trained them, and I ran with them. But, enough on this. As I said, I don't buy either story, at least not as of yet.

 

I didn't mean for you to watch it, meant simply anyone who even watched it would see the statement on that article is not fully accurate

 

Do you agree the idea the guy was "wailed on" by the dad is also likely bullshit, due to the absence of injury? And if so, the "eyewitness" included in the video is suspect?

 

I think the entire thing is suspect, I however find the idea of the guy beating a girl in a wheel chair far more unlikely of the two.

Being 'wailed on' can be simply an over blown approach, all sides are known to do it. Plus it's very possible to be hit, pushed, w/o visible injury.

 

1. But if he was hit, why didn't he mention it once during the police interview - again, on being told he was being charged with assault, why didn't he just go ballistic? He was obviously amped about everything else. But he didn't mention being assaulted during the entire interview on tape. Not once. You talk about reasonable human behavior ("cops didn't manhandle him in the way they would if he had hit the girl"), but this is a huge gap in reasonable response. Holding it to the same standard as "the other side," I'd have to say this is a huge dent in the story, fatal, really. Who do you know who was royally pissed off about being arrested, who on being told one of the charges was assault, and this was false, doesn't raise a peep? More than that, who do you know who on being told he was being charged with assault, who in fact was himself victimized, doesn't immediately go apeshit? Commonsense demands "bullshit," it seems to me.

On the other hand, the mother and father both claim the guy was hitting their daughter. No - not disinterested parties, of course. But they did make the claim.

2. Camera breaking at the key moment?

I'm not giving you a hard time, Grim. These just raise red flags for me on the "other side."

Arraignment is tomorrow.

 

I don't buy either story to be honest of 'wailed on' or beating the person in a wheel chair, just simply that I'd buy an over bearing father running into the kid more than I do him beating the girl in the wheel chair. Personally I think both sides are over embellishing it.

I do however have to state the 'charged with assault' yet again the charges as he was being told revolved more along the lines of where he was with just a mention of 'possible assault' The kid appeared to be more defending on his rights under the constitution than anything, which might appear off to you, however from what I watched in the beginning with his show down with the Secret Service agent he comes off as the type who will use that over being pushed/shoved, doesn't honestly shock me one bit.

Camera breaking at key moment, well honestly you are with friend, friend starts getting assaulted, I myself would not hold the camera and tape, I'd be throwing the camera down and knocking some heads. Again I'm not saying that's what happened but that point honestly is not out there IMO. Even running to try to help, very easy to drop the camera, or other method to have it break.

 

It's all BS, supported by cheerleaders like the horrific Malkin.

As I said in an earier post, look how the MSM spin it when some fat bastard falls on his arse trying to grab a Trooofers camera.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/042108_gang_assaults.htm

 

Camera: Sure, you're right, reasonable. Guess I just have to ask where all the conspiracy theorists are on this, because, well, hell - ORCHESTRATED comes springing forward, were I inclined this way. But the same folks who see conspiracy everywhere are completely mute here, and I do find that just a bit disingenuous. (I do not include you here, Grim).

No, it isn't off to me that the kid was defending his rights here, particularly as it seems this is what he came for. Not one bit.

But again, it is utterly unreasonable that a guy who just got belted would keep his mouth shut - entirely shut, not a question of "embellishment," but not a single word - on the assault he received, ESPECIALLY when he was just told he was being charged with that assault. I'm sorry, bullshit. If some asshole danced on my head, even if I came to launch my new political party, if sitting in a police van, handcuffed, I was just told among other things, I'm going in because I belted someone - in particular, when I know the "victim" was my aggressor, I'd go absolutely apeshit in calling foul. So would you, I'd have to believe, Grim. Except I have a feeling no one dances on our heads.

Beyond that, if he didn't do it, why the hell didn't he just say so? Forget the scenario, "the dad hit him." Say no one hit the kid, and the kid hit no one. On being told I was charged with assault, I wouldn't give it a pass, while talking about free speech issues. Assault? That's serious shit, man. That ain't trespass. If I didn't do it, I'd say at least an "I didn't hit anyone!" Any reasonable person would.

Yet it wasn't until much, much later that the kid comes out with this. By the same standard of "reasonableness" respecting arresting officer behavior on a kid who just punched a wheelchair kid, it isn't reasonable, by any stretch of the imagination, it seems to me, to sit there and watch a kid hear he's charged with assault and he says nothing - but talks about the free speech issue - without at least going, "well, maybe something is there."

Just opinion, of course, with nothing else behind it. We'll see.