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

[FlashLackey]

The few who were having a rally were being peaceful until they were provoked and then attacked by the guardsmen with teargas.

Not according to eye-witness accounts.

The guard told the crowd to go home for their own safety via bullhorn. The crowd responded by throwing rocks and a bottle by another account.

me?? I'd leave

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

The guardsmen didn't have the luxury of being able to leave.

It may have been better had the guardsmen that shot kept their nerves like the other troops. However, that is speculation. Had the guards "left" or stood around doing nothing, there is no telling what the event would have led to. It's possible that it would have been a worse outcome than what happened.

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.

As I've pointed out multiple times before, the article I linked to is based on multiple eye-witness accounts. Eye-witness accounts were part of the multiple court decisions. My position is supported by multiple eye-witness accounts rather than the isolated examples you have. That's a lot of multiples.

I said no such thing and took no such position.

Do you think that Guantanamo detainees should have criminal trials?

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

No. However, I take multiple court cases that each involve testimony from multiple eye-witness accounts in a controlled environment with legal repercussions for lying as much stronger evidence than the anecdotal examples from one side of the incident that you have dug up.

It is not against the law to go to university, especially at exam time.

It is also not against the law to defend yourself when faced with violence. It's not against the law to disperse an illegal riot. The only people breaking the law in this case were the violent protesters. That's why they are the ones that should be held accountable for the deaths.

I would be interested in reading the accounts by the soldiers who actually fired on the students that day.

I couldn't find direct testimony. Seems like that should be available somewhere as public record...

Some more links:

The guardsmen had bruises and contusions: http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=4207,3191997

Not sure about you. But, "gravel" is not able to cause bruises or contusions in my experience.

Here's an interesting one with evidence released just last month indicating that shots may have been fired at the guardsmen first:

Previously undisclosed FBI documents suggest that the Kent State antiwar protests were more meticulously planned than originally thought and that one or more gunshots may have been fired at embattled Ohio National Guardsmen before their killings of four students and woundings of at least nine others on that searing day in May 1970.

...

The upheaval that enveloped the northeastern Ohio campus actually began three days earlier, in downtown Kent. Stirred to action by President Nixon's expansion of U.S. military operations in Cambodia, a roving mob of earnest antiwar activists, hard-core radicals, curious students and others smashed 50 bank and store windows, looted a jewelry store and hurled bricks and bottles at police.

Four officers suffered injuries, and the mayor declared a civil emergency. Only tear gas dispersed the mob.

An exhaustive review later concluded that this unrest on the streets — the worst in Kent's history — was "not an organized riot or a planned protest."

But the FBI's investigation swiftly uncovered reliable evidence that suggested otherwise.

...

Yet the declassified FBI files show the FBI already had developed credible evidence suggesting that there was indeed a sniper and that one or more shots may have been fired at the guardsmen first.

Rumors of a sniper had circulated for at least a day before the fatal confrontation, the documents show. And a memorandum sent to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on May 19, 1970, referred to bullet holes found in a tree and a statue — evidence, the report stated, that "indicated that at least two shots had been fired at the National Guard."

Another interviewee told agents that a guardsman had spoken of "a confirmed report of a sniper."

It also turned out that the FBI had its own informant and agent-provocateur roaming the crowd, a part-time Kent State student named Terry Norman, who had a camera. Mr. Norman also was armed with a snub-nosed revolver that FBI ballistics tests, first declassified in 1977, concluded had indeed been discharged on that day.

Then there was the testimony of an ROTC cadet whose identity remains unknown, one of the pervasive redactions concealing the names of all the FBI agents who conducted the interviews and of all those whom they interrogated. Although presumably angry over the demonstrators' destruction of the campus ROTC building, the cadet's calm, precise firsthand account nonetheless carries a credibility not easily dismissed.

Before the fatal volley, the ROTC cadet told the FBI, he "heard one round, a pause, two rounds, and then the M-1s opened up."

The report continued that the cadet "stated that the first three rounds were definitely not M-1s. He said they could possibly have been a .45 caliber. … [He] further stated that he heard confirmed reports of sniper fire coming in over both the National Guard radio and the state police radio."

The cadet also told the FBI he observed demonstrators carrying baseball bats, golf clubs and improvised weapons, including pieces of steel wire cut into footlong sections, along with radios and other electronic devices "used to monitor the police and Guard wavelengths."

...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...illings/print/

Lot's of eye-witness testimony in there for LR to sink his teeth into.