Video Footage of Woman In Peaceful Protest Shot In Face By Police

Originally posted by Nygdan
If you don't leave when the police tell you to, you get shot with rubber bullets. If you don't want to get blasted in the face, don't go to a protest.

Yeesh, one of these idiots is wearing a mask and screaming at the police.

In the interview afterwards, she says she thinks they shouldn't be happy about it, that they shouldnt applaud it. Is she kidding? Of course they are going to applaud it, they pretty clearly specifically targeted her and we glad that they hit her. Maybe next time she won't wear a bright red jacket to draw their fire.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Nygdan]

You should be shot, with lead.
It is every American's RIGHT to assemble, if you can't support and uphold that right then you deserve a very public execution.

Originally posted by ANOK

Not true, I have never seen a protest where there are no cops in riot gear. And yes they do need permission to protest. If they didn't get permission how did the cops know to be there?

The cops are there to intimidate and a show of power by the state. What good would protesting in a park do? Protests are supposed to be a nuisance, an inconvenience.
They're not just a day out. How would anybody be effected by a protest in a park? Instead of picking on the protesters how about looking into what is being protested?

All you care about is your own selfish inconvenience. Take the day off. Better yet join the protest. Maybe with enough voices we could actually make a change, cause we all know voting doesn't do anything but waist our time, and give the sheep the illusion of control.

You are right, the police will show up in all protests, but only to protect the protestors. In any portest there are people who agree, and people who disagree. The police are there to stop the illegal activites before they happen. If a riot starts, they will already be there. If two people start to fight they will be there. If they start to vandilize property, they will be there.. They are there for a good reason. NOT to "intimidate". Saying they are there to "intimidate" is the hippy thing to say, you must be from the 60's.

The police are there for the safety of everyone.

Also you ask "what good would a protest in the park be?". That is exactly the question people without the ability to think ahead will ask. Let me explain... you see the video of the woman getting shot in the head with a pellet? And the 100+ police in riot gear escorting them away? ALL OF THAT WOULD BE AVOIDED IF THEY WERE FOLLOWING THE LAW AND PROTESTING IN PLACES THEY ARE ALLOWED TO BE. If they were protesting in a park, they would most probably be protesting there a lot longer than if they were protesting in the middle of the street.

I guarantee you if they were protesting in a park, the police wouldn't bother them untill the park closed.


Some of you need to re-learn what PROTEST means. It does NOT mean to be a "nuisance, an inconvenience." Its does NOT mean you have the right to stop traffic, and disobey laws, AT ALL. And that is why people are getting shot in the head with a rubber pellet, because they have no clue how to protest.


Here I suggest you learn what protest means.

dictionary.reference.com...

The correct way to protest.... is to get together many many people that share your same views. Then make a FORMAL declaration of disapproval or objection. Call the local news and let them know about the protest, and get them to cover it. In a park, in a stadium, in a open field... if you get enough people together you will be noticed and heard. Breaking laws in order to get a point across is NOT acceptable.

With your logic of a protest being "a nuisance, and inconvenience", then that would mean that 9-11 is a justified protest. It's ok to kill people, because they are protesting. Its ok to stop traffic and break laws, because they are protesting... thats just wrong.


[edit on 19-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
You are right, the police will show up in all protests, but only to protect the protestors.

Ah you really think the cops are there to protect the protesters?...lol
How many protests have you been to?

And you're missing the point, a protest is not supposed to be some nice little gathering in a park. It is supposed to be in your face and causing a nucense.
How would you get non-protesters or government to pay attention, or see the anger, if you're in some park or designated area?

You may think that is from the 60's, you obviously haven't paid that much attention.
It's the authorities that are forcing protests away from the street, not the protesters.
And btw, no I'm not from the 60's, most of my protesting days were in the 80's in the UK during the miners strike and the dark thatcher yrs.
They make todays protests look like girl scout meetings, which it seems you and the authorities want. None of this hey ho BS, we did real civil disobedience, we took over the streets, our streets. Yes they belong to us, all of us, not the authorities.
We closed down the financial district of London for a day during the 'Stop the City' protests. I could tell you some stories of cops 'protecting' the protesters...lol

No I'm not advocating killing ppl, now your being silly. We don't need some law to tell us that's wrong. I don't kill ppl cause the law doesn't allow me, I don't kill ppl cause it's wrong. We can figure out wrong and right without the law to tell us.
So yes I do advocate breaking 'their' laws when necessary, it's not my law, sry I don't share your obvious blind respect for 'their' laws. To make change some laws have to be broken, there is no way around it.
There was a law once in Germany that Jews had to be rounded up and locked away, problem is German citizens had your logic and did nothing to stop it, cause it was the law.

Protesting in a park is stupid, kind of defeats the whole point doesn't it?

There is such a contradiction in the US, you all claim to be the freest country in the World yet you want to take ppls freedoms away. It doesn't make sense.
As a free country you should be applauding the right to protest, not trying to stifle it with laws and weak arguments against it.
What's more important, to have the right to protest your grievances, or the law that tries to stifle your freedoms? Just because some out of touch elite from the ruling class makes a law it has to be followed, no questions? Someone who believes in true liberty would have to say no.

Even if you don't agree with protesting you have to at least see shooting ppl with rubber bullets is extremely overly harsh punishment for just blocking traffic, and inconveniencing somebody, no?

I am having a real hard time finding where it say you have to have a permit to protest.



Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Can someone show me where it says you need a permit please?

ive heard the saying "power doesnt make men corrupt, corrupt men are drawn to power" i think it may have been George Orwell who said it and i believe that statements very true indeed, thats all these police are there bad sheep, i saw on some program a while back 2 protesters blocking traffic on a bridge by hanging over the sides with a rop between them. sure enough the ploice came up and simply cut the rope, one of the protesters was saved by his freinds but the other fell 20 metres and broke his back, TALK ABOUT INTOLERANCE! these people are paid by us to protect us

ANOK my mam was in the miners riots and she says it was great but the police were brutal!! it was probably the last time the working class of britain wielded any power

When I first saw this video, I was outraged by what occurred.

I was upset enough about what I saw that I called a friend of mine with a local Florida Law Enforcement agency and asked him specifically what would make them fire rubber bullets into an unarmed crowd of picketers. He, of course, asked me what was in the video, which I described to him in detail. A couple things about his response though I found interesting.

First, in order to picket anywhere you must get a permit to do so. If you are obstructing the right of way or the rights of any other citizen then you have broken the law. The permit tells you specifically where and when you are allowed to protest. I am not sure if I agree with this, but I can somewhat understand it. There are certain interest groups out there that use unfair tactics in protests to block a business to try to cause them financial loss, and that is obviously unfair to the business. I do disagree with picketers being sent miles away from a site because of political interests, however. There does have to be a happy medium that allows people to express their rights of free speech and displeasure over things, but at the same time that does not automatically mean that they are correct and allowed to disrupt the rights of others.

The second thing was even more interesting to me personally. He explained to me that there is little chance that this headshot was intentional. Now this gentlemen works for a Corrections Facility and has been their Riot Squads Special Weapons Expert. The gear that is used is exactly the same, and corrections personnel use it a lot more often then normal officers (Extractions, Riots, etc).

According to him the guns that fire rubber bullets are more like a shotgun then a rifle, they fire rubber buckshot that spreads out all over the place. These shots bounce around until they finally loose inertia and stop or hit something soft. These rounds are not a single shot rifle style of bullet that can be specifically aimed to hit a person in the face. Now he did admit that an officer that is a good shot with one could estimate the distance to bounce them off the ground so the rounds will bounce back up and have a greater chance of hitting a target in the five to six foot high range, and he knew this distance in exact feet.

So with the two headshots seen here, it is most likely just a lucky shot, a bad bounce, or they just happened to be in the right range by accident. Even if an officer was able to bounce the shot to try to increase the chances of a headshot there was no way that the officer could control which direction each individual projectile flew. In addition, if an officer was intentionally trying to make a headshot on the protesters, it was most likely on the group in general and not on any specific person, and he would have to know exactly how to do it.

He also told me that the order to fire would have to come from the ranking officer, it is not up to each individual officer to decide when they are allowed to fire any device into a crowd.

With that in mind, I would like to know more about what the protest was about, and what they did specifically to end up having that order given?

As to the actions of the officers after the incident, well anyone that has spent time around cops has seen this gung-ho ego crap in person. It’s just the way they are; maybe it’s the adrenaline, male bonding, joking around, or whatever. To the outsider it seems crass, even to me, but with the things people in that field see on a daily basis it tends to warp their senses of humor. I have seen those same level of inappropriate jokes made around hospitals just as often. When you work in those types of environments, it does that to some people. I personally do not find it very professional and do not engage in it, but it does happen nonetheless.

Originally posted by Sistinas
I am having a real hard time finding where it say you have to have a permit to protest.

You’re going to find it in your local city ordinances. It’s not a federal law, it’s state by state, just like murder and most other offences against persons or property.

Here is the specific law for Florida


AFFRAYS; RIOTS; ROUTS; UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 870
AFFRAYS; RIOTS; ROUTS; UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES

870.01 Affrays and riots.--
(1) All persons guilty of an affray shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(2) All persons guilty of a riot, or of inciting or encouraging a riot, shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

870.02 Unlawful assemblies.--
If three or more persons meet together to commit a breach of the peace, or to do any other unlawful act, each of them shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

870.03 Riots and routs.--
If any persons unlawfully assembled demolish, pull down or destroy, or begin to demolish, pull down or destroy, any dwelling house or other building, or any ship or vessel, each of them shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

This one is extremely interesting:

870.05 When killing excused.--
If, by reason of the efforts made by any of said officers or by their direction to disperse such assembly, or to seize and secure the persons composing the same, who have refused to disperse, any such person or other person present is killed or wounded, the said officers and all persons acting by their order or under their direction, shall be held guiltless and fully justified in law; and if any of said officers or any person acting under or by their direction is killed or wounded, all persons so assembled and all other persons present who when commanded refused to aid and assist said officer shall be held answerable therefor.

Edit to add:

Actually after further research there are a TON more laws that can apply depending on what the type of assembly:

876.03 Unlawful assembly for purposes of anarchy, communism, or other specified doctrines.
876.04 Allowing unlawful assembly in building prohibited.
876.17 Placing burning or flaming cross in public place.
876.18 Placing burning or flaming cross on property of another.
876.19 Exhibits that intimidate.
876.20 Wearing mask and placing exhibit to intimidate.
876.22 Subversive activities law; definitions.
876.36 Inciting insurrection.
876.34 Combination to usurp government.
876.35 Combination against part of the people of the state.
876.38 Intentional injury to or interference with property.
876.43 Unlawful entry on property.
876.52 Public mutilation of flag.
871.01 Disturbing schools and religious and other assemblies.
871.04 Advertising; religious discrimination; public places.

And the list goes on and on…


[edit on 8/19/2006 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Nygdan
If you don't leave when the police tell you to, you get shot with rubber bullets. If you don't want to get blasted in the face, don't go to a protest.

Yeesh, one of these idiots is wearing a mask and screaming at the police.

In the interview afterwards, she says she thinks they shouldn't be happy about it, that they shouldnt applaud it. Is she kidding? Of course they are going to applaud it, they pretty clearly specifically targeted her and we glad that they hit her. Maybe next time she won't wear a bright red jacket to draw their fire.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Nygdan]

Are you nuts?!? Are you an American?!? This is AMERICA Nygdan! It never ceases to amaze me that you are still a moderator on this board. So we have to risk death by rubber bullet to the brain through the eye socket if we want to protest? Someone cannot wear a mask and yell at the police? I yell at the police, when we have a scene and I am firt on there, I then become incident commander they HAVE to listen to me. I work with them on a daily basis, you are way wrong, they shot that lady in the FREAKING FACE!!!

Originally posted by Nygdan

Sure, they were excessive. These cops fired rubber bullets, and not to excess. Also, the civil rights movement was a far greater cause than 'no more war in iraq' is. Those cops were firing in the 60's because they wanted to keep blacks down, not because they were trying to dispurse a crowd. THe modern 'peace protests' and 'anti-WTO" protests aren't peaceful protests, in general, either. I don't recall seeing MLK walking around with a mask during those marches.

B.S. WTO protest ARE non violent. i work for the government as an OFFICER and I will tell you bubba those violent protesters at WTO in Washington and florida were hired by the WTO with governmental complience as an excuse to use violence against the people. If something is wrong with what is being done to US and our JOBS we should be able to shut a city down.

You should resign as a moderator.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
So we have to risk death by rubber bullet to the brain through the eye socket if we want to protest

No, Nygdan is correct. If a protester were told to disperse for any reason then they best disperse. Read the laws above, they have the right to do what they want to you and will not be held responsible for your death. Just because there is a protest does not immediately make the protesters correct, this is a free country and its supposed to be majority rules. If you infringing on the rights of the majority to express your opinion then you are breaking the law, and as such they have the right to end your protest; if you want to protest and keep it within the law then they cannot touch you. However, you know how protests are, they get out of hand, and then the police have to break them up. If you stay beyond the point that you have broken the law, then they can hurt you.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
I work with them on a daily basis, you are way wrong, they shot that lady in the FREAKING FACE!!!

Read above, the gun is not a single bullet type, its like a shotgun full of buckshot and they cannot control where the rounds are going to hit. They can only somewhat control the height of impact, if the officer is a very good shot.

Originally posted by Legalizer
You should be shot, with lead.

Ah I see, a fellow citizen who agrees with the law and disagrees with you should be murdered. Very enlightened.

It is every American's RIGHT to assemble

Yes, that does not mean that you have the right to assemble in public streets, block traffic, tread on public park-grounds, etc etc. All rights come with responsibilities, the public is the entity that enacted the laws that regulate the right to assemble. The police have to enfore those laws.

niteboy82
I don't even know why it mattered or came up in the first place

Feel free to review the previous posts.

Eh, symbolism, or the simple fact that they wanted to

The Law forbids it. You've got to be kidding if you beleive these kids are wearing black masks because they are making a symbolic statement. THey are wearing a mask so that they can't be id'd and charged.

Isn't a rally supposed to attract attention?

And that is precisely why there are laws controlling public assemblies, because people will make spectacular acts of violence and destruction in order to 'get the message heard'.

I wonder how that would hold up when put against a video tape

A video tape that shows what exactly? The police using rubber bullets to disperse a crowd. That is perfectly legal.

but judging by how they acted, I'm sure it could be quite biased.

How are they supposed to act? Go home and cry? Start wailing "oh lord, I had to break up a peaceful demonstration by using violence"?? Be serious, they made the decision that the group had to be broken up, the fact that they're happy about it shows that they considered it right, not that they recognize that its wrong.

Who cares if they ordered them to leave?!?

The public citizenry, speaking through the law.

If they were behaving peacefully and were within their rights then the police officers have no business telling them to leave

And if they weren't? Then they'd be correct to use non-lethal means to remove them no?

Were they legally permitted (i'm against paying for permits, but hey, that's the law) and were they within their rights?

That, of course, is the question. Everyone is automatically suggesting that the cops just 'went nuts'. That video shows nothing, other than the police using rubber bullets to disperse a crowd. They were on the streets, its probable that they were given a permit to protest but not to block traffic, that that is why the police were telling them to leave, they refused, the police dispursed them.

I still have the suspicion, and almost full belief, that these officers were wrong in this situation

Its allways possible and if they did just haul off and start shooting people, then, yeah, that'd be an abuse of power, they wouldn't be acting within the law, in fact, they'd be the criminals.

kleverone
please refrain from using the rubber bullets

Well, tear gas would clearly be a better way to disperse a crowd. Some researchers are studying using incredibly foul smelling stuff, but not noxious, in order to get people to choose to leave (though in that situation, it was to work along with building fire alarms).

guerilla
I wonder if that pig would love a molotov cocktail in the face?

BAD PIG!!!

See, the police aren't naive, they know who goes to these protests and wear black masks. You've, essentially, justified breaking it up.

[edit on 19-8-2006 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
So we have to risk death by rubber bullet to the brain through the eye socket if we want to protest

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
I work with them on a daily basis, you are way wrong, they shot that lady in the FREAKING FACE!!!

Read above, the gun is not a single bullet type, its like a shotgun full of buckshot and they cannot control where the rounds are going to hit. They can only somewhat control the height of impact, if the officer is a very good shot.

No kidding there bucko you think its ok to shoot at protesters with rubber bullets that cannot be properly controlled? You think that we should just take the laws that are infringe on our rights to protest? Slavery was a law at one time. If I was there with an Engine i would have turned a 2 1/2 inch hoseline on those "peace officers".

If the people would shut a few cities down then maybe the government would listen to us. You got your information from a prison guard? Nice source...

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by niteboy82 Eh, symbolism, or the simple fact that they wanted to

The Law forbids it. You've got to be kidding if you beleive these kids are wearing black masks because they are making a symbolic statement. THey are wearing a mask so that they can't be id'd and charged.

Just on the mask issue alone

The 2006 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 876

876.12
Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public way.--No person or persons over 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road, highway, or other public way in this state.

876.13
Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public property.--No person or persons shall in this state, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the state.


876.14
Wearing mask, hood, or other device on property of another.--No person or persons over 16 years of age shall, while wearing a mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, demand entrance or admission or enter or come upon or into the premises, enclosure, or house of any other person in any municipality or county of this state.

876.15
Wearing mask, hood, or other device at demonstration or meeting.--No person or persons over 16 years of age, shall, while wearing a mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, hold any manner of meeting, make any demonstration upon the private property of another unless such person or persons shall have first obtained from the owner or occupier of the property his or her written permission to so do.

876.19
Exhibits that intimidate.--It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to place, or cause to be placed, anywhere in the state any exhibit of any kind whatsoever with the intention of intimidating any person or persons, to prevent them from doing any act which is lawful, or to cause them to do any act which is unlawful.

876.20
Wearing mask and placing exhibit to intimidate.--It shall be unlawful for any person or persons while wearing a mask or any device whereby the face is so covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer to place, or to cause to be placed, at, on, or in any place any exhibit of any kind whatsoever.

Originally posted by Nygdan

And that is precisely why there are laws controlling public assemblies, because people will make spectacular acts of violence and destruction in order to 'get the message heard'.

You mean like our forfathers did? You think that maybe the guy in the mask doesnt want to be targeted as a terrorist by some creep like Alberto Gonzalez that had nuns and priest thrown out of airplanes in Honduras? Dont think he didnt either, I personally know a priest that was there. Our country has been hijacked.

[edit on 19-8-2006 by LoneGunMan]

For decon5, so the police are above the law? Do they not wear masks to intimidate? Do you have a clue as to how far we are slipping in our freedom? If the police can wear masks on a search warrent raid we should too. This is why people wear masks at protests. Link

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
She is standing and walking in the middle of the street, so is everyone else. Walking in the middle of the intersection. They are obstructing traffic, and breaking normal traffic laws.

So, in America you get shot in the head for traffic violation?

Interesting country you have there.

And I thought the Israely response in Lebanon was disproportionate.

[edit on 19-8-2006 by yanchek]

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
No kidding there bucko you think its ok to shoot at protesters with rubber bullets that cannot be properly controlled?

They are considered less then lethal ammunition if used correctly, but accidents can happen.
That is why if you’re going to protest you have to go by the rules:

1) Obtain a Permit.
2) Stay in the EXACT area that you have a permit to protest.
3) Protest peacefully.
4) Do not perform actions or put on displays that are obstructive to others or intimidating.
5) Do not trespass.
6) Do not block access to anything.
7) If asked to disperse, then do so, you can always get another permit another day.
8) Disperse means LEAVE, not lag behind so you can yell things at the cops while dragging your feet.

Any questions on how this works so no one gets hurt, and you still get your point across?
Do most protesters push it to the limit until it becomes a mob scene?

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
You think that we should just take the laws that are infringe on our rights to protest?

There must be some, or every group that could get together 20 or so people would be able to interfere with people that they have no right to interfere with. By way of example is it fair for a certain interest group here in Florida to find out who it is that funds Christian TV then show up at the donors businesses dressed like an Alternative Rated X Movie, and perform simulated sexual maneuvers to intimidate that donor to not give money to the Christian TV show for airtime again? This is use of intimidation against someone’s rights by costing them embarrassment and loss of profit.

How about the KKK are they right to have held some of the assemblies that they used to hold here in the south? Look at the laws above, you think this is why there are so many about not using crosses and wearing masks. Make some sense now?

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Slavery was a law at one time.
If the people would shut a few cities down then maybe the government would listen to us.

The problem is that the protests that effect actual law they have more protections against in some ways then protests against private people/companies. However, we still have to have some law on this to protect the little guy that is being harassed as well. Besides this lets say that you do get 2000 people together to protest a law, does that really mean that the majority of the citizens do support the change in the law that your protesting?

There has to be a better way to go about change…

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
You got your information from a prison guard? Nice source...

First he has also been a street officer, he has a degree in Criminal Justice, he is a Certified Gun Smith, and he is the Special Weapons Expert on a Riot Squad, he just now works in the prison and he happens to be a person I talk to a lot. I have just as many other officers I can call, but the answer would have been about the same. If you would like I can also ask a state trooper, a couple of sheriffs, and several Police Officers I know the same thing.

Truth be told though, I know this guys training, and he has a ton of experience with the Riot Squad and especially with the special weapons. Police that work in corrections use some of that equipment a couple times a week to extract prisoners from cells when need be. So, with that in mind who better to ask? I could ask the other people but they are not going to be able to answer the question as well.

Originally posted by yanchek
So, in America you get shot in the head for traffic violation?

Interesting country you have there.

And I thought the Israely response in Lebanon was disproportionate.

[edit on 19-8-2006 by yanchek]

You’re twisting what is being said WAY, WAY out of context. It is in fact possible to be shot in this country for anything if you continue to forcibly resist a police officer in the performance of his duty. The police will try and do it as non-violently as possible in almost every situation, barring a few bad apples, but the more you struggle with them the more you limit their possible ways to resolve the situation. By way of example:

www.hcso.tampa.fl.us...

This fool actually shot at the cop then blocked the road for hours in a stand off, yet they still took him down without killing him.

1) Obtain a Permit.
2) Stay in the EXACT area that you have a permit to protest.

Very interesting; yes, let's have conditional protests that can be streamlined from public view and attention. In fact, this is what MLK should have been authorized to do as well: protest in a park.

Shooting someone in the face with a rubber bullet and then laughing and mocking the victoms afterwards in no way seems procedural, does it? Justifying it by the mechanics of meritable protest and how this somehow streamlined into the disporportionate aggression it did is simply justifying the arrogance taken by the police in this praticular situation.

One man in a mask does not justify shooting arbritrary members of thos protest who were blatantly not wearing masks.

A women holding up a sign and clearly announcing a peacefull protest does not merit the scorn and laughs she recieved after the incident.

And America certainly cannot go on with conditional peacefull protests, this is simply defeating the purpose of protest

Luxifero

I've watched this video twice and the first thing I notice is that it's edited to favor the shooting victim. I don't know what she said or did and what the police told her to do before the shooting incident. It was quite evident that she was refusing to disperse. What they should have done was arrest her on the spot after she refused to leave. Shooting at her again was just bad judgement.

Wearing red to the protest was a major psychological ploy on her part to bait the many Anti-Castro Cubans within the police and the communities in South Florida. She's a lawyer working in Coral Gables, Fla. and she knows exactly what the color "red" means to local community, Communism.

I've heard very little about the FTAA meeting and its right now it seems pretty insignificant when compared to the expanding conflict in the Middle East, Global warming and the bigger picture that has been folded into this thread, the dismantling of the US Bill of Rights. What better way to endear yourself and your cause to a larger audience than nearly martyring yourself.

Mention the words, "free trade" and all the little (petty) 'ist's (anarchist,socialist, communist) come running. I agree that there needs to be greater economic justice in the world but the only way that you as an individual will get a greater sense of it is by careful financial planning and self-education not through state sponsored programs. Minorities in the US are told by the left because of their race, ethnicity or economic status that can't compete fairly with whites of just slightly better economic standards, pure horse puckey. I feel far more insulted by this liberal intelligentsia elitist view than the dumbest redneck's racial slur.

I wonder how many of these protesters put their money where their mouth is ? Did they ride bicycles or board buses to go to the protest or did they drive their cars to it? Do they live in a lower income neighborhood or patronize local businesses? I could go on forever with the total hypocrisy of the American political left but I'll finish here.