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

[david petley]

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

[FlashLackey]

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.

[silverx2]

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.

[FlashLackey]

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.

[david petley]

but the national guard is not to blame.

...especially the majority of them who did NOT feel threatened enough to open fire with their weapons without any command to do so.

d

[david petley]

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.

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.

Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.

Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.

Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people.

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

...and just to add some balance to the words of wisdom

I must not write a word to you about politics, because you are a woman.

This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it

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.

[FlashLackey]

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!

[Loyal Rogue]

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

When you present opinions like this as if they were facts that support your position, it just damages your credibility.

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?

[FlashLackey]

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.

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

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.

As a matter of fact, all of the other eye-witness accounts from students, faculty members, and bystanders disputes the guardsmen's feelings.

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.

Guardsmen disbursing riot and defending themselves = legal
Protesters rallying on campus and attacking guardsmen = illegal

[david petley]

If someone started burning down your house or throwing rocks at you, what would you do? Give them the thumbs up, "YO! Patriot!

...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.

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.

[FlashLackey]

Untenable guy, what would you do if someone was throwing rocks at you?

[Loyal Rogue]

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

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.

Your quote doesn't even support your position.

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?

[FlashLackey]

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.

[FlashLackey]

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.

[Loyal Rogue]

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.

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.
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.

[david petley]

Untenable guy, what would you do if someone was throwing rocks at you?

me?? I'd leave

...or I would do what the majority of those soldiers did, stand around NOT shooting people.

[Loyal Rogue]

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.

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.
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.

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.

I said no such thing and took no such position.
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.

[david petley]

...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.

[david petley]

Do you take the outcome of the OJ trial as the God's honest fact that OJ was innocent?

in reverso world, if a court makes a decision, it can't be wrong.

In reverso world I am sure Gary Tyler is guilty and still deserves to be in prison as well.

[silverx2]

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.
None of the students or faculty knew that the guard would be firing live ammunition at everyone in sight.

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 one

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.

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.
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.

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.

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?

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