So as long as someone has a gun then you do whatever they say? That's how dictatorships emerge and maintain power.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
Printable View
So as long as someone has a gun then you do whatever they say? That's how dictatorships emerge and maintain power.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
if you dont want to get hurt, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frets
thats some pretty common ****ing sense frets. You want to have a violent rally? dont complain when that violence gets turned on you.
Do you know for certain that every person killed or injured was present at an illegal rally and failed to disperse?Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
For eg, one person was shot in the ass, so he was definitely going away from the soldiers.
This was another's eye witness account -
'Sandy was walking with one of her speech and hearing therapy students accross the green. Neither Sandy nor the young man had anything to do with the assembly of students on the green, but yet, as an innocent passerby, Sandy was the victim of a confused National Guardsman's rifle.'
Innocent dead people cannot blame anyone. They are dead. innocent but dead. ...and you think that is ok?Quote:
the innocent people that died that day should blame the mobs of people that turned what should have been a peaceful event into a violent one.
Who else here thinks that your own soldiers killing innocent students who could have been your brother, or sister, or cousin, or friend is ok ...just because they were in the vicinity?
During the rally that day, no building was burnt, and there was, and still is, no proof that anyone who was killed or wounded that day was involved in looting or any other violence (unless you think that flipping someone the bird is a shooting offence). There is not even surety about why they were in a University car park...were they rally goers? were they students going to class?Quote:
by burning down a building, and looting in the days prior
Too bad they didn't have a system like in Thailand, where red shirts or yellow shirts make you an obvious supporter (or target).
if you are getting out of a vehicle in a car park, walking towards a class, and a bunch of people come runing down a hill, away from soldiers with bayonets and tear gas, and they mill around you, what are you supposed to do?Quote:
pretty simple really, dont group up with a mob of people in a standoff against armed forces and expect everything to be butterflies and eskimo kisses.
While you are trying to decide where to go BAM, you're dead.
See, the big problem with all of this comes down to a few words really.
Indiscriminate is the main one. Undisciplined is another (there was no actual FIRE order, just a small group of soldiers out of a much larger group, who decided to turn and fire on the students)
This is a picture of where the soldiers who fired were standing -
http://www.may4archive.org/images/guardview.jpg ...and the carpark you can see is where most were killed and injured. We are talking a long way away here ...200 yards or so.
Please do some history research before you suggest that being killed by your own soldiers is ok in such circumstances.
david
The guardsmen were being attacked illegally while doing something legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
Had the perpetrators of the crime, the protesters, disbursed as required by law, the innocent people would still be alive.
Making up the circumstances under which people died is a poor way to remember them. That was Petley's doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by WannaBe_80z
The deaths were tragic and worthy of remembrance. It is only further abuse piled on to a sad story to point fingers at the wrong people and make up fantastical reasons for why they died. We shouldn't white-wash the protesters culpability. Rather, praise peaceful protests like those conducted by Martin Luther King instead of the violent and destructive acts of the Kent protesters that instigated this tragedy.
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
From - http://www.may4archive.org/aftermath.shtml
In an effort to excavate the facts surrounding the shooting, the Akron Beacon Journal and members of the Knight newspaper team launched an intensive investigation into the Kent incident, which culminated in a thirty-thousand word report, later awarded a Pulitzer Prize. The report offered these conclusions to its readers on May 24, 1970:
Quote:
The four victims did nothing that justified their death. They threw no rocks nor were they politically radical. No sniper fired at the National Guard. No investigative agency has yet found any evidence sufficient to support such a theory. The guardsmen fired without orders to do so. Some aimed deliberately at students; others fired in panic or in follow-the-leader style. It was not necessary to kill or wound any students. The Guardsmen had several other options which they did not exercise, including firing warning shots or marching safely away.
Reverso world.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
huh!! so it was not the national guard who actually did the killing and wounding of unknown and potentially uninvolved students without orders??Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
...Reverso world for sure.
david
Quote:
The four victims did nothing that justified their death. They threw no rocks nor were they politically radical. No sniper fired at the National Guard. No investigative agency has yet found any evidence sufficient to support such a theory. The guardsmen fired without orders to do so. Some aimed deliberately at students; others fired in panic or in follow-the-leader style. It was not necessary to kill or wound any students. The Guardsmen had several other options which they did not exercise, including firing warning shots or marching safely away.
The guardsmen did nothing that justified their being attacked by a mob of 500 violent protesters.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
A person that is attacked in their home during a home invasion has several options too. Having options doesn't remove the responsibility of the aggressors (the protesters) for damage and injury resulting from the defense of the people they are attacking.
It doesnt matter if they were at the violent rallys or not, they should have used common sense, and known that, hey there are ARMED SOLDIERS a stones throw away, or look AN ANGRY MOB throwing stuff at ARMED ****ING SOLDIERS, Maybe i should just stay inside till this showdown blows over.
Last time i checked i wasnt bullet proof(yet) if im at school, and 3 days earlier a bunch of people rioted and burned down the Recruitment office of th national guard, They day after people set fire to buildings and looted stores, and then on the day of the shooting there was another "peaceful" rally planned, which the school tried to stop before it started because they knew it was going to be a cluster****, i think id like to believe that id be smart enough to say to myself that morning, "You know what silverX2, Maybe we shouldn't go outside today"
So david before you start pointing fingers and blaming national guardsmen for the actions they took keep in mind, If there is no violent mob, there is no need for armed forces.
Do i think its right innocent people died? of course not. Do i think it was the national guards fault? no not even a little bit.
Had the crowd disbursed when told to with the bullhorn, would those students have died?Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
omg, it is reverso world.
Look up Dave, do you see Flashkit or Klishfat?
I am so glad I do not live in the US, having jokers like you justifying what MOST see as a shameful, violent, unnecessary and deadly act against students, that was not justified by any account except the national guards', would make me scared for my life.
here is one person who was wounded that day, look how threatening he is. Those kneeling guardsmen look so fearful ...look at them, valiantly holding firm against overwhelming and imminent danger - some guy with a flag.
http://alancanfora.com/themes/alancanfora/mi2.jpg
here is an eye witness account -
http://web.viu.ca/davies/H323Vietnam...State.1970.htm
Quote:
I remember his testimony. He has very poor eyesight, and on May 4 he couldn't get the gas mask on over his glasses, so he had to wear the gas mask without glasses. He was blind as a bat without them, and he admitted he just knew he was shooting in a certain direction. That was a startling admission. There was a guy out there who could hardly see, blasting away with an M-l.
Are you serious david?
its not like that students that were rallying were sitting in a circle singing songs of happiness and playing pattycake. It was a Volatile situation Made worse due to the fact that in the days leading up to it the violence was consistently escalating on both sides.
Day 1.) By the time police arrived, a crowd of 120 had already gathered. Some people from the crowd had already lit a small bonfire in the street. The crowd appeared to be a mix of bikers, students, and out-of town youths who regularly came to Kent's bars. A few members of the crowd began to throw beer bottles at the police, and then started yelling obscenities at them. The disturbance lasted for about an hour before the police restored order. By that time most of the bars were closed in the downtown area of Kent.
day 2.)When the National Guard arrived in town that evening (at around 10 P.M.), a large demonstration was already under way on the campus, and the campus Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) building [11] was burning. The arsonists were never apprehended and no one was injured in the fire. More than a thousand protesters surrounded the building and cheered its burning. Several Kent firemen and police officers were struck by rocks and other objects while attempting to extinguish the blaze. Several fire engine companies had to be called in because protesters carried the fire hose into the Commons and slashed it.[12][13][14] The National Guard made numerous arrests and used tear gas; at least one student was slightly wounded with a bayonet.[15]
Day 3.) things started to calm down, students failed to follow curfew laws put into effect.
Day 4.)Fearing that the situation might escalate into another violent protest, Companies A and C, 1/145th Infantry and Troop G of the 2/107th Armored Cavalry, Ohio Army National Guard (ARNG), the units on the campus grounds, attempted to disperse the students. The legality of the dispersal was later debated at a subsequent wrongful death and injury trial. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that authorities did indeed have the right to disperse the crowd.
The dispersal process began late in the morning with campus patrolman Harold Rice,[19] riding in a National Guard Jeep, approaching the students to read them an order to disperse or face arrest. The protesters responded by throwing rocks, striking one campus Patrolman and forcing the Jeep to retreat.[7]
Just before noon, the Guard returned and again ordered the crowd to disperse. When most of the crowd refused, the Guard used tear gas. Because of wind, the tear gas had little effect in dispersing the crowd, and some launched a second volley of rocks toward the Guard's line, too distant to have any effect, to chants of "Pigs off campus!" The students lobbed the tear gas canisters back at the National Guardsmen, who wore gas masks.
Each day it was the rally people that started the violence, It escalated, and the NG tried to peacefully break it up. when that failed they were forced to be more agressive, at which point thing got out of control. i wasnt there i dont know what realy happened but based on information i can find the national guard was not in the wrong.
Actually, the account was justified by multiple US courts of law. So, obviously, there are others here that agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
When you present things like this as if they support your position, it just damages your credibility. The guardsmen were greatly outnumbered by a crowd advancing on and attacking them.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
Did you not read the sourced account from Kent? The crowd was advancing on the guardsmen, forcing them to back up.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
This picture demonstrates how people could be accidentally killed far away if the guardsmen were shooting over the heads of a much closer mob. That the guardsmen were wearing gas masks, obstructing vision, could have been a factor regarding their aim.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
And none of that removes the basic fact that the guardsmen had reason to fear for their safety.
Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
I think this statement is startling strong in favor of my position. A mob of 500 violent protesters bearing down on a blind guardsmen and you're surprised that he fired his weapon to defend himself?Quote:
I remember his testimony. He has very poor eyesight, and on May 4 he couldn't get the gas mask on over his glasses, so he had to wear the gas mask without glasses. He was blind as a bat without them, and he admitted he just knew he was shooting in a certain direction. That was a startling admission. There was a guy out there who could hardly see, blasting away with an M-l.
I agree with one thing you said - it got out of control.
There was no order to fire.
I find it totally amazing that you can blame somone who is shot for getting shot. It is a passive thing. It happens to you, not because of you.
I don't blame the people who got shot. I blame the violent protesters that were attacking the guardsmen, who were mostly just young guys trying to do their job.
enough of reverso world for me today. You guys are nuts imo, and if your soldiers ever shoot the citizens who pay them again, I hope you remember where you stand on that issue. There will always be someone who can find a justification.
...ask the Chinese goverment about Tiananmen Square.
We aren't entitled to attack people simply because we pay them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
your right, if i walk out to a group of armed soldiers, and throw rocks at them, if i get hurt or shot totally not my fault, and its most certainly not my fault if people around me get hurt because of my actions.
as i said before based on the facts that i can find, the violence was escalating for FOUR days, people should have used better common sense and not have held a rally days after a military building got burnt down.
a question - when is something the act of a lawless mob, rather than a principled protest, where only remaining option the people have is to defend their constitutional rights?
Is it when you protest a tax and then go and destroy other peoples property?
Is it when your freedom of speech is limited and you rally to object?
This is a trick question.
Your nation was born out of protest, and then finally revolution, by people acting against their legal government and the law at that time.
david
The American revolutionaries were not surprised when the British responded to their acts with violence. In fact, they expected and were prepared for it.
Violence and destruction are not protected forms of free speech. A protester becomes a criminal when they violate the laws that the people legislated. A mob becomes a lawless one when it refuses to disburse when confronted by legitimate authority. The courts found that the government in this case had legal grounds to disburse the mob. Given the facts, I'm not sure how anyone can construe that the protests didn't cross the line from free speech to criminal acts.
The government is not only justified but has a sworn obligation to uphold the laws legislated by the people. The guardsmen were doing exactly what tax payers pay them to do. Assist the government in enforcing the laws of the land (that are above the capability of police to handle), set in place for common good, safety, protection of private and public property and so on.
ok then david, those people were well within thier right to pick up some guns and have themselves a revolution.
Oh wait, they didnt want to risk their lives to have freedom, they were protesting the Acts of our nation to help bring freedom to other people that were unable to do it by themselves. Stop making these "free speech" rallys out to be anything more then what they were!
Revolutionary war: War to seperate ourselves from England and the vicelike grip of a king thousands of miles away across an ocean.
The kent state rallys: A bunch of kids who didnt think the united states shouldnt invade a country. BOO ****ING HOO i wish everything was peachy and full of eskimo kisses but its not, those kids had EVERY opportunity to disperse, if there had been no riots earlier, and if most likely a group of those same ****ing rally people not started burning buildings and throwing rocks at ****ing FIREMEN and police officers the national guard NEVER would have been called.
Freedom of speech, NOT FREEDOM OF VIOLENCE against Armed soldiers, Police officers, and VOLUNTEER ****ING FIREMEN.
Excuse me if i feel no remorse about people in an angry mob that got hurt after throwing rocks are armed soldiers. the innocent bystanders should not have been outside, its sad they died its not entirely their fault but the national guard is not to blame.
Since you bring up the American revolution, you may know that one of the biggest actors in that cause was John Adams. John Adams who defended the British troops involved in the Boston Massacre.
...especially the majority of them who did NOT feel threatened enough to open fire with their weapons without any command to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
d
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Quote:
The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.
Quote:
Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.
Quote:
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
Quote:
Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people.
...and just to add some balance to the words of wisdomQuote:
That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world
Quote:
I must not write a word to you about politics, because you are a woman.
I looked hard, but nowhere could i find a quote that suggested using soldiers to repress freedom of expression by students was a good thing.Quote:
This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it
And you have yet to demonstrate how the guardsmen were "used" to repress freedom of legal expression.
If someone started burning down your house or throwing rocks at you, what would you do? Give them the thumbs up, "YO! Patriot!
When you present opinions like this as if they were facts that support your position, it just damages your credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Let's get back to the facts for a moment.
There are no eye-witness accounts that support the assertion that any of the college students were "advancing on" or "bearing down on" the guardsmen.
The only basis for this opinion is that in their official legal defense for firing on unarmed civilians, the guardsmen stated that they felt like the crowd was advancing on them.
That is from your own link.
Do you think the guardsmen's lawyers would have them say anything differently then what they did to protect their asses and the administration's collective ass?
As a matter of fact, all of the other eye-witness accounts from students, faculty members, and bystanders disputes the guardsmen's feelings.
Why do you not give any weight or credibilty to any of the other witness statements, accounts and interviews?
You immediately sided with the authorities without question.
Did you even listen to the interviews in the broadcast I linked to?
Do you think those witnesses are lying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htmQuote:
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.
They moved toward the mob to try and disburse it. Became trapped and were forced to go back the way that they came. That is bearing down on.
They "dispute the guardsmen's feelings"? Obviously, you dispute their feelings as well. Why? Because they chose to join the military? It's easy to dispute someones feelings when you aren't the one who was being attacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Guardsmen disbursing riot and defending themselves = legal
Protesters rallying on campus and attacking guardsmen = illegal
...nobodies house was burned, reverso guy. It was an ROTC building which was empty at the time, and was a symbol, and it happened the previous night.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I guess if I had opened fire on an unarmed crowd with an M1, I too would be claiming (after the incident) that they were not only throwing rocks at me, but that my life felt threatened by those rocks.
I would try and sweep under the carpet the fact that nobody of any rank gave me the order to fire. I would try and sweep under the carpet the fact that I fired blindly in the direction of a crowd.
Untenable guy, what would you do if someone was throwing rocks at you?
Your quote doesn't even support your position.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Retracing their steps because they had chased the students into a dead end does not equal retreating from an attack.
You act as if it were the students who were ambushing and rushing the guardsmen when every account shows it was just the opposite.
Did you listen to any eyewitness acounts and interviews, or all all your assumptions coming from the stories you created in your head by twisting a few words of a summary by an author?
Why do you not give any credence to all the other eyewitness accounts?
The article I am quoting is based on eye-witness accounts. Eye-witness accounts were part of the multiple court cases deciding on the matter.
My position includes credence to eyewitness accounts.
--
The guardsmen were not "rushing" or "ambushing" the rioters. They told the rioters to disburse with a bullhorn and the rioters responded with violence. The guardsmen moved toward the mob to try and enforce the disbursement. But, the mob continued the violence, forcing the guardsmen to go back to where they started.
That is bearing down on by the rioters. That is retreating by the guardsmen.
It's interesting that the same people that think enemy soldiers caught in the battlefield should be tried in the same way as Martha Stewart are unwilling to accept the legal outcome of the Kent Shootings.
I guess, in your eyes, you lose rights when you join the US armed services but you gain rights if you try to kill US troops in foreign lands.
Silver, this was on a busy college campus at lunchtime with most students having lunchbreak in the campus square as usual or walking between classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
None of the students or faculty knew that the guard would be firing live ammunition at everyone in sight.
The few who were having a rally were being peaceful until they were provoked and then attacked by the guardsmen with teargas.
The "rocks" that were being thrown were handfuls of gravel from the gravel parking lot and they were being thrown in the direction of the guardsmen who were several hundred feet away and out of distance.
There are two sides to every story.
You should do a little research into what witness accounts say before you decide who was in the right and who was in the wrong that day.
Yes, the students who crossed the line should have been arrested and charged with disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, etc.
Their is no way that the guardsmen were justified in shooting live ammunition into a crowded public place with more innocent bystanders present than protestors.
me?? I'd leaveQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
...or I would do what the majority of those soldiers did, stand around NOT shooting people.
So in other words, you have no basis or evidence of eyewitness accounts to back up your position other than your interpretation by twisting the meaning of a few words in the summary by author.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Thanks for clearing that up.
I would have been willing to listen to and consider any actual eyewitness testimony you had to backup your opinion, but unfortunately you aren't as openminded about the situation or you would have listened to the interview I posted.
I said no such thing and took no such position.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Do you take the outcome of the OJ trial as the God's honest fact that OJ was innocent?
Is every legal decision ever made by the court accurate and just?
I don't live in a world of absolutes like you seem to.
I judge every case based on it's individual situation, motive, and evidence.
...one has to ask, who makes decision in any military group? Is it the chain of command? I am guessing the answer has to be 'yes'.
Did that chain of command excercise an order to stand and fire?
Well, none of the records I have read indicate that the command to fire was given in any legal understanding of the word. The National Guard did not acknowledge that such a command was given.
So basically, you have a small bunch of ill-disciplined men with guns shooting at essentially weaponless people, killing or wounding anyone they hit, regardless of their culpability in any crimes, imaginary or real, from that moment or previous situations like the rioting in town in the days preceding.
It is not against the law to go to university, especially at exam time.
I would be interested in reading the accounts by the soldiers who actually fired on the students that day.
:) in reverso world, if a court makes a decision, it can't be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
In reverso world I am sure Gary Tyler is guilty and still deserves to be in prison as well.
Falculty passed out fliers saying the rally was canceled before hand to prevent anything from happening after 3 days of escalating violence in regards to rallys related to this oneQuote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
if by few you mean over 2000 people then yeah i def can see how someone wouldnt notice 2000 people holding a rally 2 days after a building on campus was burned down, and firemen/police officers were assaulted with rocks.Quote:
The few who were having a rally were being peaceful until they were provoked and then attacked by the guardsmen with teargas.
The "rocks" that were being thrown were handfuls of gravel from the gravel parking lot and they were being thrown in the direction of the guardsmen who were several hundred feet away and out of distance.
as i said previously 3 days of escalating violence led to attempts at canceling the rally. obviously something bad was going to happen, it was just a matter of when.
Again 3 days of escalating violence, this didnt happen yesterday, the soldiers didnt have the techology we have now to non violently disperse a crowd, One of the first things a gun owner learns is if you are going to pull your weapon you better be prepared to use it. a military group sent to disperse a crowd which had a high likely turning into a riot would load their guns with blanks? really? do you have any idea how absurd that sounds?Quote:
There are two sides to every story.
You should do a little research into what witness accounts say before you decide who was in the right and who was in the wrong that day.
Yes, the students who crossed the line should have been arrested and charged with disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, etc.
Their is no way that the guardsmen were justified in shooting live ammunition into a crowded public place with more innocent bystanders present than protestors.
no we have pepper spray guns, Rubber balls instead of bullets, ****ing heat rays, they didn't have that 40 years ago.
As for reading eye witness reports, those will be biased, i read the wiki page which is freely editable from both sides, the most non partial thing i can find. its not like i went to Nationalguardhistory.com or Kentstatemassacrememorial.com