What if you knew her and found her dead on the ground?

40 years ago, student protests at Kent State University turned deadly when the national guard opened fire on protesters killing four and wounding nine.

After all of this time it still horrifies me that it could have happened. Ask your parents about it, do some history and never forget.

13 seconds of firing, 67 shots fired by 29 national guardsmen, 4 killed, 9 wounded.

Do not forget...

Jeffrey Glenn Miller (20) - shot through the mouth - killed instantly.
Allison B. Krause (19) - fatal left chest wound - died later that day.
William Knox Schroeder (19) - fatal chest wound - died later that day.
Sandra Lee Scheuer; (20) - fatal neck wound - died from loss of blood.

I hope this never happens again in a democratic country where freedom of speech is valued so highly, and an administration decided to limit that freedom.

david

From what I read, the guardsmen said that they acted in self-defense. Some of them were indicted but the charges were dismissed in court.

I didn't see anything indicating that an administration had anything to do with it.

The national guard was on campus at the directive of someone, and using teargas and M1 Garands against students, on campus, in a very public place where innocents could be, and were, injured and killed is reprehensible.

If they were rioting in the streets and burning cars, like your average losing sports supporter, I might have tried to understand why they were being shot. But this was on a university campus, a place the national guard had no place being under any circumstances. <removed comment>

...but I have to admit I did expect you to come and defend the actions of the national guard. You are pretty predictable.

david

http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm

Quote:

---

Four Kent State students died as a result of the firing by the Guard. The closest student was Jeffrey Miller, who was shot in the mouth while standing in an access road leading into the Prentice Hall parking lot, a distance of approximately 270 feet from the Guard. Allison Krause was in the Prentice Hall parking lot; she was 330 feet from the Guardsmen and was shot in the left side of her body. William Schroeder was 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when he was shot in the left side of his back. Sandra Scheuer was also about 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when a bullet pierced the left front side of her neck.

Nine Kent State students were wounded in the 13 second fusillade. Most of the students were in the Prentice Hall parking lot, but a few were on the Blanket Hill area. Joseph Lewis was the student closest to the Guard at a distance of about sixty feet; he was standing still with his middle finger extended when bullets struck him in the right abdomen and left lower leg. Thomas Grace was also approximately 60 feet from the Guardsmen and was wounded in the left ankle. John Cleary was over 100 feet from the Guardsmen when he was hit in the upper left chest. Alan Canfora was 225 feet from the Guard and was struck in the right wrist. Dean Kahler was the most seriously wounded of the nine students. He was struck in the small of his back from approximately 300 feet and was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Douglas Wrentmore was wounded in the right knee from a distance of 330 feet. James Russell was struck in the right thigh and right forehead at a distance of 375 feet. Robert Stamps was almost 500 feet from the line of fire when he was wounded in the right buttock. Donald Mackenzie was the student the farthest from the Guardsmen at a distance of almost 750 feet when he was hit in the neck.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david petley

The national guard was on campus at the directive of someone, and using teargas and M1 Garands against students, on campus, in a very public place where innocents could be, and were, injured and killed is reprehensible.

---

Your suggestion that they were there to suppress free speech is, from what I've read, completely unfounded.

That said, I agree that the outcome was tragic and that the reforms in equipment and approach to riot control that resulted from this incident were obviously a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david petley

If they were rioting in the streets and burning cars, like your average losing sports supporter, I might have tried to understand why they were being shot. But this was on a university campus, a place the national guard had no place being under any circumstances.

---

Rioting and burning things has occurred on university campuses as well. I haven't read any accounts of what the rioting students were doing at the time. But, I think it's presumptuous to dismiss the possibility that any rioting crowd could seriously threaten guardsmen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david petley

...but I have to admit I did expect you to come and defend the actions of the national guard. You are pretty predictable.

---

Interesting. Do you think of how I might respond every time you post?

God forbid that anyone treats a national guardsmen like a person!

A little research shows that my hesitation to buy into your assumptions was warranted:

Quote:

---

Friday evening in downtown Kent began peacefully with the usual socializing in the bars, but events quickly escalated into a violent confrontation between protestors and local police. The exact causes of the disturbance are still the subject of debate, but bonfires were built in the streets of downtown Kent, cars were stopped, police cars were hit with bottles, and some store windows were broken. The entire Kent police force was called to duty as well as officers from the county and surrounding communities. Kent Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency, called Governor James Rhodes' office to seek assistance, and ordered all of the bars closed. The decision to close the bars early increased the size of the angry crowd. Police eventually succeeded in using tear gas to disperse the crowd from downtown, forcing them to move several blocks back to the campus.

The next day, Saturday, May 2, Mayor Satrom met with other city officials and a representative of the Ohio National Guard who had been dispatched to Kent. Mayor Satrom then made the decision to ask Governor Rhodes to send the Ohio National Guard to Kent. The mayor feared further disturbances in Kent based upon the events of the previous evening, but more disturbing to the mayor were threats that had been made to downtown businesses and city officials as well as rumors that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and the university. Satrom was fearful that local forces would be inadequate to meet the potential disturbances, and thus about 5 p.m. he called the Governor's office to make an official request for assistance from the Ohio National Guard.

---

Quote:

---

Members of the Ohio National Guard were already on duty in Northeast Ohio, and thus they were able to be mobilized quickly to move to Kent. As the Guard arrived in Kent at about 10 p.m., they encountered a tumultuous scene. The wooden ROTC building adjacent to the Commons was ablaze and would eventually burn to the ground that evening, with well over 1000 demonstrators surrounding the building. Controversy continues to exist regarding who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building, but radical protestors were assumed to be responsible because of their actions in interfering with the efforts of firemen to extinguish the fire as well as cheering the burning of the building. Confrontations between Guardsmen and demonstrators continued into the night, with tear gas filling the campus and numerous arrests being made.

---

Quote:

---

Shortly before noon, General Canterbury made the decision to order the demonstrators to disperse. A Kent State police officer standing by the Guard made an announcement using a bullhorn. When this had no effect, the officer was placed in a jeep along with several Guardsmen and driven across the Commons to tell the protestors that the rally was banned and that they must disperse. This was met with angry shouting and rocks, and the jeep retreated. Canterbury then ordered his men to load and lock their weapons, tear gas canisters were fired into the crowd around the Victory Bell, and the Guard began to march across the Commons to disperse the rally. The protestors moved up a steep hill, known as Blanket Hill, and then down the other side of the hill onto the Prentice Hall parking lot as well as an adjoining practice football field. Most of the Guardsmen followed the students directly and soon found themselves somewhat trapped on the practice football field because it was surrounded by a fence. Yelling and rock throwing reached a peak as the Guard remained on the field for about ten minutes. Several Guardsmen could be seen huddling together, and some Guardsmen knelt and pointed their guns, but no weapons were shot at this time. The Guard then began retracing their steps from the practice football field back up Blanket Hill. As they arrived at the top of the hill, twenty-eight of the more than seventy Guardsmen turned suddenly and fired their rifles and pistols. Many guardsmen fired into the air or the ground. However, a small portion fired directly into the crowd. Altogether between 61 and 67 shots were fired in a 13 second period.

---

http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm

I agree they should be treated as person/s ...and in that case, as persons who opened fire with live ammunition, killing people between 90 and 130 yards away.

...It takes a mighty good arm to throw a brick that far.

One wounded student was over 250 yards away, and most who were injured or killed were in a University building parking lot ...god forbid they might just be going to classes or something (it is a university after all).

david

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

From what I read, the guardsmen said that they acted in self-defense. Some of them were indicted but the charges were dismissed in court.

I didn't see anything indicating that an administration had anything to do with it.

---

Ok... you are officially scaring me.

C'mon, it's forty years later.
Every investigation has been long closed.
There are eye-witness accounts from everyone involved most of whom are still alive and giving interviews.
There is no reason for anyone to still be on the same page as the misreports that were only broadcast for a few hours immediately after the incident before they were corrected.

Haven't you listened to any of the retrospectives or interviews with survivors that have been on TV or the radio for the last few days?
Here's just one of the many that are available to listen to right now: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=126423778
Click on the button to listen to the actual interviews and story.

http://cdn.buzznet.com/assets/users1...9820205848.jpg

Quote:

---

Interesting. Do you think of how I might respond every time you post?

---

LOL ...no need to think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david petley

I agree they should be treated as person/s ...and in that case, as persons who opened fire with live ammunition, killing people between 90 and 130 yards away.

...It takes a mighty good arm to throw a brick that far.

One wounded student was over 250 yards away, and most who were injured or killed were in a University building parking lot ...god forbid they might just be going to classes or something (it is a university after all).

---

Go ahead and go down with your ship. The facts are plain to see, the crowd was violent and had already caused much destruction.

It's unfortunate that the incident ended in tragedy. However, to blame some mysterious "administration" or the guardsmen who reasonably feared for their safety is misguided at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

A little research shows that my hesitation to buy into your assumptions was warranted:

---

Wait a minute...

Are you saying that it's ok for National Guardsmen to execute unarmed college students for throwing gravel?!?
You don't think that's even a little illegal, immoral, unconstitutional?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Ok... you are officially scaring me.

C'mon, it's forty years later.
Every investigation has been long closed.
There are eye-witness accounts from everyone involved most of whom are still alive and giving interviews.
There is no reason for anyone to still be on the same page as the misreports that were only broadcast for a few hours immediately after the incident before they were corrected.

Haven't you listened to any of the retrospectives or interviews with survivors that have been on TV or the radio for the last few days?
Here's just one of the many that are available to listen to right now: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=126423778
Click on the button to listen to the actual interviews and story.

---

Haven't you read the exhaustively sourced account that I linked to, making use of eye witness accounts and documented facts (buildings being burned, bonfires in the street, state of emergency being issued, etc.)?

The students weren't shot to suppress freedom of speech. The guardsmen acted in self-defense in the face of violence, after 4 days of violent rioting and destruction by the protesters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

It's unfortunate that the incident ended in tragedy. However, to blame some mysterious "administration" or the guardsmen who reasonably feared for their safety is misguided at best.

---

Holy FK!... that doesn't even jibe with what you posted.

The guardsmen were order to disperse the crowd.
There is nothing that says they feared for their safety.
They had rifles, the students were on their own campus throwing handfuls of gravel.
Maybe you should at least listen to one of the eye-witness interviews about what happened that day before you gfo making grand and misinformed decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Wait a minute...

Are you saying that it's ok for National Guardsmen to execute unarmed college students for throwing gravel?!?
You don't think that's even a little illegal, immoral, unconstitutional?

---

I'm saying that it can be legal for someone to defend themselves when faced with physical violence.

Are you saying that a mob of violent people, throwing rocks at a person is not physically threatening?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Holy FK!... that doesn't even jibe with what you posted.

The guardsmen were order to disperse the crowd.
There is nothing that says they feared for their safety.
They had rifles, the students were on their own campus throwing handfuls of gravel.
Maybe you should at least listen to one of the eye-witness interviews about what happened that day before you gfo making grand and misinformed decisions.

---

How does that not "jibe" with what I posted?

Maybe you should at least read the carefully sourced link I posted from kent.edu before anointing yourself an authority on the subject.

Yes, I've read the link.
No it does not match your position.
Yes there are two "theories" related to the incident, one from the eye-witnesses both involved and bystanders, and the other that was the official position of the authorities to cover their own asses at the time.

While there is no independent corroboration to back-up the alibi of the administration/National Guard, that is the position you choose to back.
Bravo!

Apparently you have no problem with Guardsmen using live ammunition on unarmed American citizens... college students standing on their own campus at lunchtime.
Perhaps you would feel differently if Obama had the National Guard fire into a group of Teabaggers that were throwing bricks through congressional office windows and shouting profanities and spitting on representatives in our nations capital... luckily he didn't so we won't know.

How threatened do you have to be, to fire blindly down on a crowd of people after driving them in front of you at bayonet point off the football field and back down into the parking lot?

How could they discern who was involved in a protest meeting and who had just got out of their car for a class?

If everybody who was killed or injured had been posing immediate threats, then your talk might have a point, but the nearest student was 20 yards away giving the National Guard the finger, and some were almost out of sight at over 200 yards away.

Whose life were they threatening??

such nonsense ...I have no idea why I even bother reading you except that it is fascinating watching someone who comes from, and still lives in, reverso world.

the Scranton Commission, set up by Nixon to investigate came to the conclusion in September 1970 that the shootings were unjustified.

Quote:

---

Even if the guardsmen faced danger, it was not a danger that called for lethal force. The 61 shots by 28 guardsmen certainly cannot be justified. Apparently, no order to fire was given, and there was inadequate fire control discipline on Blanket Hill. The Kent State tragedy must mark the last time that, as a matter of course, loaded rifles are issued to guardsmen confronting student demonstrators

---

davidp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Yes, I've read the link.
No it does not match your position.
Yes there are two "theories" related to the incident, one from the eye-witnesses both involved and bystanders, and the other that was the official position of the authorities to cover their own asses at the time.

---

You mean one is the position upheld by multiple courts of law and the other is a conspiracy theory with no supporting evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

While there is no independent corroboration to back-up the alibi of the administration/National Guard, that is the position you choose to back.

---

What are you talking about? Was someone supposed to read their minds at that moment before they had a right to fear for their lives?

I agree with the findings of multiple courts and common sense, based on the facts. A large (500 core cheered by another 1000) violent crowd was bearing down on 100 guardsmen, a small number of whom opened fire in fear for their lives. As I've said, it's tragic and it's good that riot control strategies have been improved since then. However, the initial statement by Petley, that it was an act of suppressing free speech is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Perhaps you would feel differently if Obama had the National Guard fire into a group of Teabaggers that were throwing bricks through congressional office windows and shouting profanities and spitting on representatives in our nations capital... luckily he didn't so we won't know.

---

Like I said, the problem was the way that the riots were approached as a matter of strategy, the way guardsmen were equipped, etc. That said, it's not a partisan issue. I would have the same position if it were Tea Party protesters in the same situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david petley

How threatened do you have to be, to fire blindly down on a crowd of people after driving them in front of you at bayonet point off the football field and back down into the parking lot?

---

You seem to have misread the account. The guard initially drove the protesters to the football field but then found themselves trapped by a fence. They were being driven back up the hill by the protesters and rock throwing when the shots were fired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david petley

If everybody who was killed or injured had been posing immediate threats, then your talk might have a point, but the nearest student was 20 yards away giving the National Guard the finger, and some were almost out of sight at over 200 yards away.

---

These were Guardsmen. Not Marines. The people hit may not have been the most violent or threatening of the protesters. That random or far away people were hit indicates that they were not adequately trained and that they had weapons not well suited for riot control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david petley

such nonsense ...I have no idea why I even bother reading you except that it is fascinating watching someone who comes from, and still lives in, reverso world.

---

Heh. I'm in "reverso world". But, you don't admit that this wasn't about suppressing free speech or that your characterization of the students as not burning things or rioting in the streets is laughably incorrect.