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

[FlashLackey]

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

So much for free speech being suppressed by that administration.

[david petley]

interesting perspective (and a very long read) - http://speccoll.library.kent.edu/4Ma...onBetrayed.htm

[david petley]

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.

Of course it was about suppressing of free speech. Those people were protesting that day about the presence of the national guard on campus.

They (national guard) were on the campus at the instigation of the governor of Ohio even though no state of emergancy had been declared.

The fact that a building was burnt down the night before is a matter for the fire department and police, not the National Guard with live ammunition to disperse un-armed people protesting the next day about something.

The rally that day was not violent, until armed soldiers, with gasmasks and bayonets mounted, formed ranks and marched towards the protesters, firing teargas in front of them.

[david petley]

anyway, have a read here - http://www.may4archive.org/jeffrey_miller.shtml & here http://www.may4archive.org/sandy_scheuer.shtml

Real people got killed at school by soldiers, and their mothers and grandmothers wept for them.

[Frets]

It is very hard to argue self defense when the nearst person shot was unarmed and 85 yards away.

[FlashLackey]

Of course it was about suppressing of free speech. Those people were protesting that day about the presence of the national guard on campus.

As explained in the link I posted, the national guard was called in due to violent rioting. It was believed that the local police force would not be able to control the rioters and uphold the law.

Obviously, that turned out to be correct.

They (national guard) were on the campus at the instigation of the governor of Ohio even though no state of emergancy had been declared.

False.

"Kent Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency"

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.

The fact that a building was burnt down the night before is a matter for the fire department and police, not the National Guard with live ammunition to disperse un-armed people protesting the next day about something.

The police force of Kent was not adequate to stop thousands of rioters from burning down a building on a university campus.

Do you think that burning down buildings should have been allowed to proceed at the rioters will?

[I agree that the equipment used was not appropriate. Improvements were made for handling riots more safely due to this incident.]

The rally that day was not violent, until armed soldiers, with gasmasks and bayonets mounted, formed ranks and marched towards the protesters, firing teargas in front of them.

After 3 days of violent and destructive rioting, resulting in a university building being burnt to the ground, the decision to ban further rallies was a reasonable act of public interest to uphold the law, protect the property of the state and safety of citizens and public workers.

Someone easily could have been injured or killed by the activities the protesters engaged in during the previous days.

[FlashLackey]

anyway, have a read here - http://www.may4archive.org/jeffrey_miller.shtml & here http://www.may4archive.org/sandy_scheuer.shtml

Real people got killed at school by soldiers, and their mothers and grandmothers wept for them.

We agree that the outcome was tragic.

[FlashLackey]

It is very hard to argue self defense when the nearst person shot was unarmed and 85 yards away.

A man was killed accidentally at a Walmart by a smaller crowd.

[silverx2]

someone died after the celtics won the world championship. shot in the eye with a pepperspray ball

[david petley]

False.
"Kent Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency"

One of us needs to do a bit of reading about who exactly can call a 'state of emergency' with all of the powers, or supensions of powers, that involves ...including control and movement of an armed national guard.

All of my readings lead me to understand that it was never officially declared, and that it was the governor whose role it was, and he didn't do it.

david

[FlashLackey]

I believe that it's typically the power of the executive branch to make that declaration for whatever province they are responsible for. So, the president can establish a national state of emergency, a governor in a state and a mayor in a city.

It wouldn't really make sense to declare the riots in Kent anything but a state of emergency for Kent since it didn't affect anyone outside.

Here it is:

In the United States, there are several methods for government response to emergency situations. A state governor or local mayor may declare a state of emergency within his or her jurisdiction. This is common at the state level in response to natural disasters.
The president of the United States, as head of the executive branch, has the authority to declare a federal state of emergency. The only emergency provisions in the U.S. Constitution are:[20] "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."[21] and an exemption from the privilege of a grand jury hearing for cases arising in the military when in service in a time of "public danger".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_o...#United_States

I think we're used to hearing "state of emergency" in the state context due to natural disasters affecting several cities in a state.

[david petley]

earlier I let this statement slide a bit

your characterization of the students as not burning things or rioting in the streets is laughably incorrect.

..I am used to the broad stroke of your brush by now.

The reality is that my characterisation of the crowd that was fired upon as not burning things or rioting in the streets is not incorrect.

There was no burning of anything by the crowd that was fired upon, nor did they start setting fire to things after the troops fired at them. They were simply holding a rally in defiance of a ban that may have been illegal. They were advanced upon by soldiers with bayonets and tear gas.

They retaliated with rocks.

They got shot.

You have quoted as proofs of your arguments several times the link I provided early in the piece and I will quote it in return -

A starkly different interpretation to that of the Guards' has been offered in numerous other studies of the shootings, with all of these analyses sharing the common viewpoint that primary responsibility for the shootings lies with the Guardsmen. Some authors (e.g., Stone, 1971; Davies, 1973; and Kelner and Munves, 1980) argue that the Guardsmen's lives were not in danger. Instead, these authors argue that the evidence shows that certain members of the Guard conspired on the practice football field to fire when they reached the top of Blanket Hill. Other authors (e.g., Best, 1981 and Payne, 1981) do not find sufficient evidence to accept the conspiracy theory, but they also do not find the Guard self-defense theory to be plausible. Experts who find the Guard primarily responsible find themselves in agreement with the conclusion of the Scranton Commission (Report , 1970, p. 87): "The indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."

...and yet, here you are typing excuses for the action! ...reverso guy

[FlashLackey]

The reality is that my characterisation of the crowd that was fired upon as not burning things or rioting in the streets is not incorrect.

So, you believe that the protesters that burned things in the street should have been shot?

There was no burning of anything by the crowd that was fired upon, nor did they start setting fire to things after the troops fired at them. They were simply holding a rally in defiance of a ban that may have been illegal. They were advanced upon by soldiers with bayonets and tear gas.

First, the guardsmen were backing up at the time of the shooting. The crowd was advancing upon them.

Second, do you think that the crowd of protesters that was involved on the day of the shooting was not involved with the rioting that occurred during the previous days? It was a bunch of people new to the issue that took the Friday shift of rioting rather than the Thursday?

Are there pink elephants in Petley world?

We're talking about the character of a mob. Even if they were entirely different people, the guardsmen's fear for their safety was legitimate, based on all of the events leading to the shooting, including the violence, burnings, rock throwing, etc. I don't think you're making a genuine effort to understand what it must have been like to have been outnumbered 15 to 1 by people calling for your head, throwing rocks at you and causing you to retreat backward. Where was it going to end had the shots not been fired? It may very well have ended in blood-shed against the guardsmen.

In fact, your statement that they didn't burn anything after the shooting is misleading:

While debate still remains about the extent to which the Guardsmen's lives were in danger at the moment they opened fire, little doubt can exist that their lives were indeed at stake in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. The 13 second shooting that resulted in four deaths and nine wounded could have been followed by an even more tragic and bloody confrontation. The nervous and fearful Guardsmen retreated back to the Commons, facing a large and hostile crowd which realized that the Guard had live ammunition and had used it to kill and wound a large number of people. In their intense anger, many demonstrators were willing to risk their own lives to attack the Guardsmen, and there can be little doubt that the Guard would have opened fire again, this time killing a much larger number of students.

It was a legitimate state of emergency, ordered by the mayor whose job it is to uphold the law and protect a city that had been attacked by protesters for days. The rally was illegal and it was the guards job to prevent the type of destruction and violence that occurred in previous days to happen again. It was a reasonable decision to attempt to disburse the illegal rally before it grew to a more uncontrollable situation like it had in the days before.

They retaliated with rocks.

Similar to when criminals fight police officers that try to arrest them.

Disbursing the rally = legal
Throwing rocks at the guards rather than disbursing = illegal

...and yet, here you are typing excuses for the action! ...reverso guy

All the article does is acknowledge the existence of this alternative conspiracy theory. There is no evidence that it's true. The position that I've explained is supported by multiple court decisions and the known facts.

[david petley]

LOL, reverso world sounds like an amazing place, but I am glad I don't live it.

Which bit of 'innocent victims of soldiers indiscriminate shooting' is flying past you so fast that you are just not getting it? They did not care who they shot at. It was indiscriminate. They killed people a long way away, who had no involvement, according to many eye witnesses.

[WannaBe_80z]

Did a remembrance thread about the Kent shootings really just turn into a political argument? It's not a far stretch considering the parties(national guard, govt...) involved but come on.

[hanratty21]

Did a remembrance thread about the Kent shootings really just turn into a plate spinning music concert?

Yes. Yes it did.

[WannaBe_80z]

Oh thanks I actually meant to type that. Silly hands typing the wrong thing.

[gerbick]

The fact you'd be surprise is quite odd to me.

[WannaBe_80z]

I never said I was surprised. Just don't see the point of the argument.

[silverx2]

all i know is that if armed soldier ask you to disperse, and you fail to do so, when people get hurt the only one you have to blame is yourself.

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 by burning down a building, and looting in the days prior.

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.