Just think. If the federal government had been more aggressive against them back then academia might not be so infested with anti-American socialists and Bill Ayers, instead of advising the president, might have been put in prison.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
I'm just sick of the idea that these people were victims. The protesters at Kent State were not peaceful. They had already set the ROTC building afire. That's why the National Guard had been called in. Protesters were approaching the National Guard screaming obscenities and throwing rocks and bottles at them. Individual guardsmen testified they were afraid for their lives.
The shootings killed four students and wounded nine. Two of the four students killed, Allison Krause and Jeffrey Miller, had participated in the protest, and the other two, Sandra Scheuer and William Knox Schroeder, had been walking from one class to the next at the time of their deaths. Schroeder was also a member of the campus ROTC chapter. Of those wounded, none was closer than 71 feet to the guardsmen. Of those killed, the nearest (Miller) was 265 feet away, and their average distance from the guardsmen was 345 feet.
Wikipedia accuracy aside, the larger picture is: there was protesting and rioting and violent action by the protestors, for several days, to the point that the Guard was called in to maintain order. And some degree of force was justified.
But... The actual shooting that occurred by the National Guard seems to be a clumsy half-baked and disorderly action by the National Guardsmen who fired on the crowd. Two of the 4 shot were protestors. But two others were just students walking by, at some distance, on their way to class. And one of the two was an ROTC student!
So, I can't endorse what happened. And although I think some of the students may have deserved what happened to them (from their own malevolence that day and in days leading up to it), the National Guardsmen could not justify or explain why they fired at the precise moment of the shooting, when a later investigation was done.
I agree that there should have been a nationwide crackdown on the Left's deliberate push to undermine and destroy our cultural institutions, nationalism and government. But this Kent State massacre is not a demonstration of how it should have been done.
(See Pat Buchanan's book Death of the West, in particular the chapter "Four Who Made A Revolution", to see the unquestionably marxist roots of 1960's liberalism, and how it definitely was --and is-- a strategy to undermine our institutions and destroy the United States. I agree with the goal of containing that Leftist radical threat, but not in incidents like Kent State, that hurt legitimate attempts to contain a legitimate threat. If anything, Kent State made it harder to crack down on university campus radicals after that.)
I'm just sick of the idea that these people were victims. The protesters at Kent State were not peaceful. They had already set the ROTC building afire. That's why the National Guard had been called in. Protesters were approaching the National Guard screaming obscenities and throwing rocks and bottles at them. Individual guardsmen testified they were afraid for their lives.
I think the shootings were justified.
The people throwing things at them were over 60 feet away with most of the crowd already dispersed. Tear gas and rubber bullets may have been justified, but lethal force was not. Two of the four victims weren't even protesters, but rather students just going to class. One was even an ROTC student who was shot in the back almost 400 feet away from the guardsmen. Why do you hate the ROTC, G-Man?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
All kidding aside, I feel bad for the ROTC guy and the one girl, but the worst you can say about that is the guardsmen hit the wrong people...perhaps because of confusion or because of poor aim.
Furthermore, after the shooting, the National Guard members were cleared of any crime by a state grand jury, tending to support that this was, in fact, justified.
All kidding aside, I feel bad for the ROTC guy, but the worst you can say about that is the guardsmen hit the wrong people...perhaps because of confusion or because of poor aim.
You're right. Killing and maiming innocent people isn't really that bad.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Furthermore, after the shooting, the National Guard members were cleared of any crime by a state grand jury, tending to support that this was, in fact, justified.
Actually, they were indicted by the grand jury but a judge dismissed the case. Later lawsuits ended in the favor of the victims and their families.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
they were indicted by the grand jury but a judge dismissed the case. Later lawsuits ended in the favor of the victims and their families.
According to this report, which is one of the ones I've read, they weren't indicted. Furthermore, according to this source, the lawsuits were settled and no verdict was reached in favor of the victims. The guard members signed a "statement of regret," which is not typically the same as an admission of guilt.
I see that wikipedia indicates that eight of the guardsmen were indicted. However, wikipedia also indicates that the charges were dismissed, in part because the court found that the guard members had acted in self-defense.
A finding of self-defense is a finding of justification.
I'm just sick of the idea that these people were victims. The protesters at Kent State were not peaceful. They had already set the ROTC building afire. That's why the National Guard had been called in. Protesters were approaching the National Guard screaming obscenities and throwing rocks and bottles at them. Individual guardsmen testified they were afraid for their lives.
I think the shootings were justified.
The people throwing things at them were over 60 feet away with most of the crowd already dispersed. Tear gas and rubber bullets may have been justified, but lethal force was not. Two of the four victims weren't even protesters, but rather students just going to class. One was even an ROTC student who was shot in the back almost 400 feet away from the guardsmen. Why do you hate the ROTC, G-Man?
It's remarkably insightful, how you repeat the facts I presented, right after I stated them.
wikipedia also indicates that the charges were dismissed, in part because the court found that the guard members had acted in self-defense.
No, it doesn't.
Quote:
In 1974 U.S. District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed charges against all eight on the basis that the prosecution's case was too weak to warrant a trial.
No justification of self defense in the dismissal.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
The guardsmen claimed to have fired in self-defense, a claim which was generally accepted by the criminal justice system.
Furthermore, according to the source used by wikipedia:
The answer offered by the Guardsmen is that they fired because they were in fear of their lives. Guardsmen testified before numerous investigating commissions as well as in federal court that they felt the demonstrators were advancing on them in such a way as to pose a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the Guardsmen, and they therefore had to fire in self-defense....federal criminal and civil trials have accepted the position of the Guardsmen. In a 1974 federal criminal trial, District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed the case against eight Guardsmen indicted by a federal grand jury, ruling at mid-trial that the government's case against the Guardsmen was so weak that the defense did not have to present its case. In the much longer and more complex federal civil trial of 1975, a jury voted 9-3 that none of the Guardsmen were legally responsible for the shootings....
The legal aftermath of the May 4 shootings ended in January of 1979 with an out-of-court settlement involving a statement signed by 28 defendants(3) as well as a monetary settlement, and the Guardsmen and their supporters view this as a final vindication of their position. The financial settlement provided $675,000 to the wounded students and the parents of the students who had been killed. This money was paid by the State of Ohio rather than by any Guardsmen, and the amount equaled what the State estimated it would cost to go to trial again. Perhaps most importantly, the statement signed by members of the Ohio National Guard was viewed by them to be a declaration of regret, not an apology or an admission of wrongdoing
Last edited by the G-man; 2010-05-047:11 PM. Reason: went back and added the link and quote
I get it, G-man. Today's not your day. First, you make a thread celebrating the death of innocent people, one being an ROTC student. Then you defend Pariah's bitchy rants over a video game. You're probably just getting old and cranky. Tomorrow, you'll get your early bird special at, what, five thirty in the morning with your senior discount. You'll spend a few hours sitting in the park, arguing with the pigeons. Then you'll end the whole day with the seven o'clock news and, if you're lucky, Wheel of Fortune.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Today's not your day. First, you make a thread celebrating the death of innocent people, one being an ROTC student. Then you defend Pariah's bitchy rants over a video game. You're probably just getting old and cranky. Tomorrow, you'll get your early bird special at, what, five thirty in the morning with your senior discount. You'll spend a few hours sitting in the park, arguing with the pigeons. Then you'll end the whole day with the seven o'clock news and, if you're lucky, Wheel of Fortune.
I prefer Jeopardy to Wheel of Fortune and ducks by the lake to pigeons in the park. Thank you very much.
But you are correct. I would like to apologize for that idiotic attempt to defend the indefensible.
I have already sent the National Guard to your house over that Pariah incident. You are obviously a threat to the American way of life.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
I get it, G-man. Today's not your day. First, you make a thread celebrating the death of innocent people, one being an ROTC student. Then you defend Pariah's bitchy rants over a video game. You're probably just getting old and cranky. Tomorrow, you'll get your early bird special at, what, five thirty in the morning with your senior discount. You'll spend a few hours sitting in the park, arguing with the pigeons. Then you'll end the whole day with the seven o'clock news and, if you're lucky, Wheel of Fortune.
Originally Posted By: the doctor
I have already sent the National Guard to your house over that Pariah incident. You are obviously a threat to the American way of life.
Man. Who lit the fuse on your tampon?
You came in on the facts i presented and repeated them. And where I respectfully presented the case, you feel a need to troll on G-man with cranky insults way beyond the discussion points.
Are you trying to be the new Rex?
This, from the dipshit that allegedly put me on ignore for the last few years, for being "uncivil". Oh kettle, thou art black.
I notice when you jump into these discussions, you're always riding in on someone else's coat-tails, usually prometheus', and you're always breaking your own sanctimonious rules of civility.
Furthermore, after the shooting, the National Guard members were cleared of any crime by a state grand jury, tending to support that this was, in fact, justified.
Actually, they were indicted by the grand jury but a judge dismissed the case. Later lawsuits ended in the favor of the victims and their families.
stop trying to confuse G-man with your liberal "facts." He's too busy mocking the deaths of young people who had different political views 40 years ago.
I get it, G-man. Today's not your day. First, you make a thread celebrating the death of innocent people, one being an ROTC student. Then you defend Pariah's bitchy rants over a video game. You're probably just getting old and cranky. Tomorrow, you'll get your early bird special at, what, five thirty in the morning with your senior discount. You'll spend a few hours sitting in the park, arguing with the pigeons. Then you'll end the whole day with the seven o'clock news and, if you're lucky, Wheel of Fortune.
Originally Posted By: the doctor
I have already sent the National Guard to your house over that Pariah incident. You are obviously a threat to the American way of life.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: thedoctor
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Furthermore, after the shooting, the National Guard members were cleared of any crime by a state grand jury, tending to support that this was, in fact, justified.
Actually, they were indicted by the grand jury but a judge dismissed the case. Later lawsuits ended in the favor of the victims and their families.
stop trying to confuse G-man with your liberal "facts." He's too busy mocking the deaths of young people who had different political views 40 years ago.
Just keep the reason you're so sad that rex wasn't masturbating to yourself.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Sit down, as this may shock you; but I've been drinking.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
I know that's a difficult thing to expect to come from the conscience of the rkmbs.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg)
[/center]![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg)
[/center]
