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

[FlashLackey]

They wouldn't be new documents.
He says he saw them after they were declassified while he was researching for a book that has already been written, published, and sold on Amazon.
That means they have been declassified and public for a long time now.
He just decided to make the claim on the anniversary of Kent State to promote his book.

Just because they were declassified doesn't mean that they were disclosed, published or made known to the public. To clarify, "new documents to us."

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.

As the nation marks the 40th anniversary of the Kent State antiwar protests Tuesday, a review of hundreds of previously unpublished investigative reports sheds a new — and very different — light on the tragic episode.

So now your bar for proof has been lowered to the point of any wild claim with no documentation or supporting evidence?

Rosen's article is just as supported as your claims that the guardsmen's bruises and contusions were caused by "gravel" or that the protesters weren't bearing down on the guard.

As I said, you have reached the point of zero credibility... a drowning man clutching at straws...

My position about this subject never relied on protesters (or FBI agent?) shooting at the guard. Though, I think it's an important thing to investigate and consider.

Your trouble seems to be this:

Guardsmen disbursing crowd and defending themselves = legal
Not disbursing and attacking guardsmen = illegal