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

[Frets]

all i know is that if armed soldier ask you to disperse,

So as long as someone has a gun then you do whatever they say? That's how dictatorships emerge and maintain power.

[silverx2]

So as long as someone has a gun then you do whatever they say?

if you dont want to get hurt, yes.

thats some pretty common ****ing sense frets. You want to have a violent rally? dont complain when that violence gets turned on you.

[david petley]

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.

Do you know for certain that every person killed or injured was present at an illegal rally and failed to disperse?

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.'

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.

Innocent dead people cannot blame anyone. They are dead. innocent but dead. ...and you think that is ok?

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?

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

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?

Too bad they didn't have a system like in Thailand, where red shirts or yellow shirts make you an obvious supporter (or target).

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.

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?

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

[FlashLackey]

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.

The guardsmen were being attacked illegally while doing something legal.

Had the perpetrators of the crime, the protesters, disbursed as required by law, the innocent people would still be alive.

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.

Making up the circumstances under which people died is a poor way to remember them. That was Petley's doing.

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.

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.

Thank you.

[david petley]

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:

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.

[david petley]

Making up the circumstances under which people died is a poor way to remember them. That was Petley's doing.

Reverso world.

[david petley]

We shouldn't white-wash the protesters culpability.

huh!! so it was not the national guard who actually did the killing and wounding of unknown and potentially uninvolved students without orders??

...Reverso world for sure.

david

[FlashLackey]

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.

From - http://www.may4archive.org/aftermath.shtml

The guardsmen did nothing that justified their being attacked by a mob of 500 violent protesters.

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.

[silverx2]

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.

[FlashLackey]

huh!! so it was not the national guard who actually did the killing and wounding of unknown and potentially uninvolved students without orders??

Had the crowd disbursed when told to with the bullhorn, would those students have died?

[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.

[david petley]

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

[david petley]

here is an eye witness account -
http://web.viu.ca/davies/H323Vietnam...State.1970.htm

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.

[silverx2]

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.

[FlashLackey]

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.

Actually, the account was justified by multiple US courts of law. So, obviously, there are others here that agree.

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

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.

Do you know for certain that every person killed or injured was present at an illegal rally and failed to disperse?

Did you not read the sourced account from Kent? The crowd was advancing on the guardsmen, forcing them to back up.

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.

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.

And none of that removes the basic fact that the guardsmen had reason to fear for their safety.

here is an eye witness account -
http://web.viu.ca/davies/H323Vietnam...State.1970.htm

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 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?

[david petley]

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.

[FlashLackey]

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.

[david petley]

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.

[FlashLackey]

We aren't entitled to attack people simply because we pay them.

[silverx2]

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.

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.