Police report: No evidence of political motive in beating of Jindal staffer
posted at 4:12 pm on April 16, 2010 by Allahpundit
My sense is that reader interest in this story expired a few days ago, but since Pat Dollard’s now claiming the NOPD told him there was a political motive and the officer he spoke to is claiming he told Dollard no such thing, I guess a new post is obligatory.
Here’s the police report, the key part of which was helpfully transcribed by the boss emeritus. Nasty shouting? Check. Vicious assault resulting in gruesome injuries? Check. Political angle? Hmmm…
“Shortly before 10:30pm, Mr. Brown and Ms. Bautsch left the restaurant and began walking towards St. Louis. Street. Mr. Brown noted there were still several protestors loitering in the area, but not nearly the number which had been present earlier. Soon after leaving the restaurant, he heard what he described as ‘cat calls.’ At an unknown point within the 400 block of Royal Street, both Mr. Brown and Ms. Bautsch then crossed from the Brennan’s side of the street to the Supreme Court side of the street. They continued to walk towards St. Louis when Mr. Brown began to hear people behind him scream obscenities. Initially he was not sure if thoese were being directed at him and his girlfriend, or if they were simply the outbursts of drunken revelers. As they neared the intersection, Mr. Brown stated he heard subjects state thing such as, ‘Little blonde bitch,’ ‘You’re a fu**king faggot,’ and ‘You think you’re fu**king special.’ At this point Mr. Brown realized these derogatory terms were being directed at Ms. Bautsch and him. He then requested she begin to walk faster toward the Omni-Royal hotel located at the intersection of St. Louis and Royal. Mr. Brown also recalled the farther they got from the restaurant, the closer these subjects got to them. When they reached the corner of St. Louis and Royal, Mr. Brown and his date turned south on St. Louis. It was at this time that one of the subjects pushed him into the iron gate which surrounds the State Supreme Court. He then fell to the ground, and one of the attackers got on top of him and began to attack him. Mr. Brown stated as he was being pushed to the ground, Ms. Bautsch was also either pushed down or fell down near where he was. As he fought to get his attacker off of him, he heard his girlfriend cry out in pain. She then repeatedly stated,”Oh my god, my leg is broken.”
All of the attackers then ran away in an unknown direction. Mr. Brown then saw two uniformed Police Officers respond to their location. He requested they notify an ambulance as Ms. Bautsch was in obvious physical pain. The officers then did so. In response to Sergeant Gernon’s questions, Mr. Brown stated the majority of the protestors had left the area outside of Brennan’s about an hour prior to their leaving the restaurant. Additionally he was unsure if the attackers were the protestors. It should be noted that other than making reference to the victims being nicely dressed, along with other observations about their physical appearance, Mr. Brown did not hear them make any other comments.
Bautsch’s mother told Fox News today that “things were said to my daughter and to her boyfriend that basically everything was about money,” but otherwise she shied away from speculating about politics. (She did, however, say that Bautsch’s leg was broken in four places, and that she has a screw running straight through her ankle. Good lord.) I don’t know how to explain the confusion between the NOPD on the one hand and Dollard and Yahoo News, which cites a source close to Bautsch as saying she does indeed believe there was a political motive, on the other. One possibility: Maybe Bautsch thinks the attackers were protesters and is inferring a political motive from that, even though nothing explicitly political was said. Another possibility: Maybe the attackers were, in fact, protesters of some anarchist stripe and zeroed in on Brown and Bautsch because they looked like stereotypically well-heeled members of the dreaded bourgeoisie. That would explain the sneering about money and being nicely dressed and it would qualify as a political motive, but not quite the political motive originally imagined by the rumor that they were beaten by mainstream lefties for wearing Palin buttons. Not sure what lesson, if any, can be drawn at this point, but consider yourself up to speed until, inevitably, we hear from Bautsch and Brown themselves.
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
And with the Boston older Bomber…
It was a one ping deal.
Electrongod on April 23, 2013 at 9:34 PM
Damn Right It Is……..
It’s a constant, in this administration, as a way to say ‘No, it’s not. It’s a one-shot deal and let’s go on.’ And I think that really is the problem that underlies all of this.
Do they think we are BLIND!…..
F’em ALL
Scrumpy on April 23, 2013 at 9:36 PM
Still nothing said about who authorized Susan Rice and other members of the Administration to spread the falsehood that some third-rate video on You Tube was the cause for Benghazi.
And Obama was fully engaged in spreading that lie, as well.
AND the survivors?
Their voices being heard?
Nothing but crickets.
coldwarrior on April 23, 2013 at 9:36 PM
At this point..
Who gives a damn..
Electrongod on April 23, 2013 at 9:36 PM
Under immigration bill, businesses could hire provisional immigrants to avoid Obamacare mandate tax
tetriskid on April 23, 2013 at 9:39 PM
Krauthammer on Benghazi report: The Obama admin pretends that these attacks are “one-shot deals”
Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn.
Drive-thru Americans respond:
“Hey, get your hands off Tyler’s Dr. Pepper, and hand me those fries.”
PappyD61 on April 23, 2013 at 9:39 PM
That’s what the Benghazi attackers said when they came upon Christopher Stevens.
Happy Nomad on April 23, 2013 at 9:41 PM
I see three monkeys… See no terrorists, hear no terrorists, speak no terrorists.
Oh no! I compared the Obama administration to monkeys. That’s racist ™. I’m doomed for the comparison, regardless of its validity.
Wino on April 23, 2013 at 9:41 PM
Me.
Happy Nomad on April 23, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Easy:
Obama: ‘The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam’
bazil9 on April 23, 2013 at 9:43 PM
The Obama administration was heard to say;
What, Me Worry?
HT Alfred E Neuman
D-fusit on April 23, 2013 at 9:45 PM
They are trying to portray the Boston Marathon attack the same way.
After Benghazi it is impossible to believe anything coming from government officials WRT terrorist attacks without double and triple corroboration from sources considered reliable. Such sources are hard to find.
And then there is the selective leaking of partial information that happens to support the narrative the admin prefers. You can never be certain you are getting all of the relevant facts. You can assume you are getting cherry-picked facts that fit the narrative.
farsighted on April 23, 2013 at 9:46 PM
Hillary’s “What difference, at this point, does it make?” now reminds me of some psychopathic killer who murdered 4 people and then later the court is probing him for any sense of remorse or regret and he basically says (with all the legitimate insight he can muster) something like “What does it matter how I feel, whether I’m regretful or have remorse, they’re going to be just as dead either way, and nothing on my part will bring them back now”. What we’re seeking in Hillary, and the psychopathic killer, is some recognition of personal concern and/or consciousness of guilt, and we’re not getting it. Not in either of them.
The short explanation of this is, they don’t care. Neither of them. They just don’t give a s***.
Paul-Cincy on April 23, 2013 at 9:47 PM
…yeah sure!…they’ve only cum once!
KOOLAID2 on April 23, 2013 at 9:47 PM
Or, in the words of Lieutenant Bill Calley, “What? My Lai?”
coldwarrior on April 23, 2013 at 9:47 PM
Hear, hear.
farsighted on April 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM
We seek more from Hillary than the equivalent of, “oh, well, what’s done is done. What difference at this point does it make?”. At least we want an interest on her part in finding out what happened. Some concern. Something.
Paul-Cincy on April 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM
Krauthammer on Benghazi report: The Obama admin pretends that these attacks are “one-shot deals”
============================
Or, as HomeLand Big Sis,NappyIWeighATon,said of the
Boston Bombings,an,
“Incident”!
canopfor on April 23, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Excellent.
D-fusit on April 23, 2013 at 9:51 PM
I should have put it in quotes..
Electrongod on April 23, 2013 at 9:51 PM
Just quit it already. It’s not a contradiction, it’s a stone-cold LIE by a bitter, used up, dishrag of a forsaken woman who is willing to kill in her effort to reach the Big Chair.
Four good men died because of her, and Barky is complicit because when those SEAL’s called for help, the Dog Eating Bat Face sat on his thumb.
Bishop on April 23, 2013 at 9:56 PM
Charges, charges…..Buehler……charges…….nope. Back to your regularly scheduled distractions.
dddave on April 23, 2013 at 9:56 PM
“Did the FBI know that Tamerlan Tsarnaev met with ‘extremists’ in Russia?”
FBI Spokesman: “No, but if you hum a few bars, we’ll fake it.
VorDaj on April 23, 2013 at 9:57 PM
So,lets Re-Cap,on the “One-Shot_Deals”!!
Fort Hood
Benghazi
BostonMarathonBombings
and a bunch,I left out,no doubt!!
canopfor on April 23, 2013 at 9:59 PM
One shot deals.
If I fire a semi auto rifle 5 times in a row it’s a machine gun to these fools, but when we’re hit time after time by dudes who all just happen to share a love of Islam then they’re one shot deals.
Bishop on April 23, 2013 at 10:01 PM
Am I reading this right? According to this admin…
- Terrorsim is a one shot deal and we are supposed to move on, nothing to see here.
- Shootings are not a one shot deal, take all the guns.
In other words, leave the terrorists alone but take away Americans 2nd Amendment rights. Guess I know who this admin really hates. (Already knew, just reinforces the idea.)
Russ86 on April 23, 2013 at 10:02 PM
Anything to do with a Muslim crime is ignored and the msm goes along with every step covering his tracks. Disgusting!
mixplix on April 23, 2013 at 10:03 PM
I hope they have the whistleblowers in undisclosed locations…
d1carter on April 23, 2013 at 10:05 PM
One shot deals! Keep in mind that you are talking about the person that the Democrats think is the front runner for the NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Eight more years of Clintons.
jpcpt03 on April 23, 2013 at 10:06 PM
Why all the time and energy reporting about an offensive You Tube video?
catmman on April 23, 2013 at 10:06 PM
The whole investigation into Benghazi has been the equivalent of a Pomeranian yapping at a Sumo wrestler.
dddave on April 23, 2013 at 10:07 PM
Is every assassination by drone Dear Leader orders a “one-shot deal”?
Or is there a pattern? Some relationship between them? Something the thousands of them all share and have in common?
farsighted on April 23, 2013 at 10:07 PM
She’s supposed to run on her “foreign policy accomplishments.”
The Dems are afraid that in 2016, there will be enough evidence to make a “She didn’t care about protecting our diplomats from terrorists. She won’t care about protecting the US” political ad.
Might even include a reference to a 3 am phone call.
Wethal on April 23, 2013 at 10:13 PM
Every attack on the US and its citizens by Islamists is a “isolated incident” with “complex motives.”
Wethal on April 23, 2013 at 10:14 PM
Answered by Bill, of course.
“Monica, how’d you get this number?”
coldwarrior on April 23, 2013 at 10:15 PM
The motives are not complex at all, they are quite simple…they wish to kill us, it is in the Koran.
“Isolated incident” means the Administration can file it away and suffer no more questions about it.
coldwarrior on April 23, 2013 at 10:17 PM
“and what are you wearing?
KCB on April 23, 2013 at 10:21 PM
Obama AND everyone he has “surrounded (himself) with”: desperately denying, understating, dismissing even the most obvious of wrongs, dangers and harms to the USA.
It’s no longer understandable as some sort of effort to be reasonable, or even “nice” — it’s a pattern of undermining security, common sense and the West.
Lourdes on April 23, 2013 at 10:32 PM
Anyway to defend dear leader
cmsinaz on April 23, 2013 at 10:33 PM
*IF* an attacker is Muslim AND his attacking is terrorism — let’s look at this through the most Leftwing lense of universalist-globalist-hippiest-academiest-coolerarama ever — then they SHARE a characteristic with others of their same ideology: Islam.
THEREFORE, Islam is at least, at least, an aspect or element in their motive/s.
Lourdes on April 23, 2013 at 10:35 PM
I guess lying under oath comes easy to that family, the Clintons.
jaydee_007 on April 23, 2013 at 10:37 PM
That’s it. The Leftmedia’s obvious lobbyist-activism in desperately miming every position held by Obama only serves to emphasize how skewered are Obama’s positions.
Lourdes on April 23, 2013 at 10:37 PM
Partisanship?
Odd, that didn’t bother those hypocrites when it came to passing ObamaCare.
You have an alternate report Democrats? Then publish it or STFU!
GarandFan on April 23, 2013 at 10:37 PM
Even true natural disasters are a constant. Muslims butchering people is another.
Dr. ZhivBlago on April 23, 2013 at 10:41 PM
Here I go again:
I KNEW Hillary was lying under oath in that testimony of hers before Congress about Benghazi. Her “hyper-emotional” delivery was proof of that — she tried her vainly best to redirect attention off the focus of assigning blame by flailing her arms, rolling her head around, raising her voice, looking down in grimacing…and more but the point is, her PHYSICAL AND AUDIO DISPLAY was proof of her lying: she expended a great deal of effort to get the point off the point and onto an emotional display.
It worked for some, as it always does: “ohhh, pooor Hillary, the pooor thing, ohhh, hasn’t she suffffered enough? Ohhh, ohhh, please, Congress, just stop it, stop it, she’s suffered enough…”
But how Hillary behaved, if it can be called that, under oath, testimony, was clearly her-engaged in lying, in a big, big effort to deflect attention off the point of the hearing and onto some other tangents. When people do that “false tears” and unusual display shown by Hillary, they’re trying to change the subject and avoid “looking guilty”.
Lourdes on April 23, 2013 at 10:43 PM
Same goes for Napolitano nearly consistently.
Lourdes on April 23, 2013 at 10:44 PM
Self-fulfilling warning. It’s a statement INTENDED to create that which is being “warned” about. Warned about, riiight.
Lourdes on April 23, 2013 at 10:47 PM
Obama’s expansion of Food Stamps makes more sense every day, in the context of understanding his motives.
Lourdes on April 23, 2013 at 10:49 PM
Yepper Lourdes
cmsinaz on April 23, 2013 at 10:58 PM
Indeed.
Solaratov on April 23, 2013 at 11:17 PM
One shot and it is America’s fault anyway. We drove them to it.
Rockshine on April 24, 2013 at 12:57 AM
Wait, Hillary Clinton lied?! This completely shakes my faith in her!
There Goes the Neighborhood on April 24, 2013 at 2:56 AM
Ah, the end result of decades of diminishing the value of truth into relativism, is the politics of professional perjury.
We didn’t get here in a single leap either–we all own the acceptable lies. Think “choice.”
Don L on April 24, 2013 at 5:53 AM
And Orwellianism.
The truth is what they say it is. How many fingers, Winston?
farsighted on April 24, 2013 at 6:25 AM
Yeah, they’re “one shot” regarding the attacker. That’s the usual consequence of suicide or apprehension. But they seem to have an organizing principle. Maybe I’ll run across it in my dot connecting app.
Barnestormer on April 24, 2013 at 7:52 AM
Why the heck didn’t the Republicans have these facts and documents ready when they were questioning Clinton? That way, when she says “I didn’t know” you hold up the document with her signature. Amatuer hour.
jnelchef on April 24, 2013 at 8:11 AM
“And the other damning evidence here, again, it doesn’t matter who the source is; it’s what the facts of the matter.”
But as Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted, “Everyone is entitled to …their own facts”
PersonFromPorlock on April 24, 2013 at 8:16 AM
O)bama would invite these terrorists to the White House for a beer if he could get away with it. Come to think of it…he has.
trs on April 24, 2013 at 9:07 AM