kent state shooting

Discussion in 'Protest' started by passapatanzy, Mar 8, 2005.

  1. shaggie

    shaggie Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    19
    I wouldn't want to see Desapman banned for something he did in this thread. He wasn't really flaming or flooding, although some of his points were far-fetched. There have been far-fetched claims by many groups on this board. I still like to debate talking points, even if they seem off-beat to me.
     
  2. shaggie

    shaggie Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    19
    There are people who were at the Kent incident who are still debating what exactly happened and why. That's normal and healthy. Just reflecting on past incidents that went wrong gives people a perspective when discussing how to avoid these problems with better behavior on the part of both the protestors and the authorities.
     
  3. andcrs2

    andcrs2 Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,232
    Likes Received:
    6
    Hmmmm, I didn't realize the following was Reserved for left coast Folks only.
    Since I'm from neither coast, I must be SOL...

    [size=+1]"W[/size]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
     
  4. SpliffVortex

    SpliffVortex Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,776
    Likes Received:
    2
    [​IMG] Many people believe that David Koresh (or the Branch Davidians) were responsible for the deaths of the 74 men, women and children who died in the inferno at Waco on April 19, 1993. This is the story that the FBI put out. It is a lie. The guns they had were legal. The local sheriff investigated and found no basis for complaints against them. These were law-abiding American citizens, even if they thought differently to most other folks. They trusted the U.S. Constitution to ensure their political rights, but they were murdered by agents acting under the authority of the U.S. government. Read this page if you believe otherwise. If you still have doubts, get the video Rules of Engagement for visual evidence. Or read the book Armageddon in Waco. Or see the film Waco: A New Revelation...... http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html

    Post Edited (Iloveburnrice) : 3/13/2005 6:02:22 PM
     
  5. SpliffVortex

    SpliffVortex Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,776
    Likes Received:
    2
    [size=+1]Armageddon in Waco[/size]
    Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict
    Edited by Stuart A. Wright
    The University of Chicago Press, 1995

    [size=-1]On February 28, 1993, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) launched the largest assault in its history against a small religious community in central Texas. Approximately eighty armed agents invaded the compound, purportedly to execute a single search and arrest warrant. The raid went badly; six Branch Davidians and four agents were killed, and after a fifty-one-day standoff, the United States Justice Department approved a plan to use CS gas against those barricaded inside. Tanks carrying the CS gas entered the compound. Later that day, fire broke out, and all seventy-four men, women and children inside perished.

    [​IMG] Could tragedy have been prevented? Was it necessary for the BATF agents to do what they did? What could have been done differently? Armageddon in Waco offers the most detailed, wide-ranging analysis of events surrounding Waco. Leading scholars explore all facets of the confrontation in an attempt to understand one of the most confusing government actions in American history.

    The book begins with the history of the Branch Davidians and the story of its leader, David Koresh. Chapters show how the the Davidians came to trouble authorities, why the group was labeled a "cult," and how authorities used unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse to strengthen their case against the sect.

    The media's role is examined next in essays that consider the effect on coverage of lack of time and resources, the orchestration of public relations by government officials, the restricted access to the site or to countervailing evidence, and the ideologies of the journalists themselves.


    — From the back cover of the book.[/size]

    Here is the Summary at the end of the chapter "Self-Fulfilling Prophecies" by James R. Lewis:



    [size=-1]The implications of these studies and supporting arguments for the Waco situation should be clear. The Branch Davidians' chances for a fair hearing were severely damaged as soon as the label "cult" was applied. After that, the mass media selectively sought out and presented information about Koresh and his community that conveniently fit the stereotype. It was only a matter of time before law enforcement and the media had completely demonized Koresh and his followers. Anticult organizations provided ample fodder for the ritual and symbolic castigation of this little-known religious sect, simplistically reducing the beliefs and practices of the community to vapid, inane categories of brainwashing rhetoric. After this demonization had been successfuly accomplished, the entire community — men, women, and children — could be consigned to their tragic fate with little more than a peep of protest from the American public, a public which overwhelmingly approved of the FBI's tragic final assault on Mt. Carmel.[/size] ​

    Or more exactly, a public which would appear to consist mostly of gullible idiots, with no sense of injustice (except when it affects themselves), believing what they were told (with the help of a willing media) by their ill-informed, ill-advised and violence-obsessed (and, as it turned out, murderous) government, a public which overwhelming approved of a shameful instance of government-sanctioned slaughter of people who had broken no law (it is legal to protect oneself against attack), including twenty-one children under the age of 16:

    Lisa Martin 13 Sheila Martin, Jr. 15 Rachel Sylvia 12 Hollywood Sylvia 1 Joseph Martinez 8 Abigail Martinez 11 Crystal Martinez 3 Isaiah Martinez 4 Audrey Martinez 13 Melissa Morrison 6 Chanel Andrade 1 Cyrus Koresh 8 Star Koresh 6 Bobbie Lane Koresh 2 Dayland Gent 3 Page Gent 1 Mayanah Schneider 2 Startle Summers 1 Serenity Jones 4 Chica Jones 2 Little One Jones 2

    Click here for the complete list of Branch Davidian victims.



    [size=+1]Waco, The Rules of Engagement[/size]

    For those who more or less know what happened at Waco this film supplies impressive visual corroboration, from footage of David Koresh (not a wild-eyed madman) explaining the Book of Revelation to his followers to pictures of the charred and contorted corpses of the Branch Davidians who died in the inferno. For those who don't know what happened — those who still believe the stories put out by various U.S. federal government agencies — this film will at the very least induce a re-evaluation of those stories, perhaps even a realization that the U.S. government lied in its account of its role in this matter.
     
  6. abnormal_cat

    abnormal_cat Member

    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I haven’t seen in this post is some of the background information leading up to the shooting. For example, the ROTC building was burnt down. When the fire department went to put out the fire, the protesters through rocks at them. The governor shut down the school and banned protests because there was a very realistic fear that a serious riot would break out.

    On the day of the shooting, the National Guard tried to disperse the crowd of protesters by shooting tear gas. This was not effective because of the wind. The protesters picked up the tear gas canisters and threw them back at the National Guard. The protestors were also throwing rocks at the National Guard.

    As far as I know no one knows who (which member of the Guard) shot first. But, I think it is clear that other people in the guard heard the gun shots and thought that the protestors were shooting at them. This created a kind of avalanche effect (more shooting).

    My brother-in-law was at Kent during the shooting. He was basically a hippy protestor at the time and heard the shots but was behind another building and so didn’t see anything. His point of view is that both sides did a lot of foolish things that brought on this problem. On the side of the government, he felt that the National Guard was not trained properly and was ill equipped for the job they had to do. They (the Guard) was given high powered WWII rifles with bayonets for crowd control. In fact, Kent State and other riots during the 60’s – 70’s had a huge impact on the type of gear and methods used in modern crowd control. On the side of the students, my brother-in-law said that the campus was a crazy house. Many of the people on the campus were not students. The protests were getting violent. The governor closed the campus and the protesters ignored the ban on all protests. Rioters looted downtown Kent.

    I haven’t talked with my brother-in-law lately, but I think what I said summarizes his ideas on the matter. Basically, he was enraged that people died at the hands of the National Guard, but acknowledges that the protesters were partly at fault.
     
  7. andcrs2

    andcrs2 Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,232
    Likes Received:
    6
    Doubts here?
    Not here.

    My personal/one size fits all Attorney was Koresh's initial before the jokers got involved.
    JB and I've spent hours discussing......well......things.


    In that pic, the American flag is an obscenity...
    ...it's a slap in the Face conjuring Feelings of illness/embarrassment/despondency/outrage.
     
  8. andcrs2

    andcrs2 Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,232
    Likes Received:
    6
    http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm is a start.

    There is much more on the Net...

    I disagree.
    If your scenario is correct, the following wouldn't have occurred:

    "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."

    I wouldn't speak for Others but there are sound/gut feel differences between being shot at and outbound shooting originating from your immediate vicinity.

     
  9. shaggie

    shaggie Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    19
    That's not true. Rhodes didn't shut down the uni before May 4th. It was shut down by the uni president shortly after the shooting. There was discussion about closing down the uni before May 4th by uni officials, but they decided to keep the campus open.

    The uni assumed that the guard was in control of the campus and tried to tell students that the rally for noon on May 4th was banned. Rhodes never got the court injunction he planned before the May 4th rally, so technically the guard didn't control the campus and didn't have the legal backing to ban the rallies. The uni assumed they did.

    All of this happened very fast. The guard came to the campus midnight May 3rd and the shooting was after noon on May 4th. That's only a day and a half of guard occupation.
     
  10. shaggie

    shaggie Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    19
    Whoever burned downed the ROTC building had no business doing so. No one knows for sure who did it. It could have been a protestor or an outside agitator. All it did was add to the tensions.
     
  11. abnormal_cat

    abnormal_cat Member

    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    You guys missed the point of the post. There were riots, looting, and buildings being burnt. It wasn’t a peaceful protest. Put your selves in the position of the Guard. If you heard shots being fired do you think that you might misconstrue the source of the gun fire? Is it far fetched to think that a group that just burnt down a building and was involved in looting the city could possess guns?

    I wasn’t at Kent State, but my brother-in-law was. He is very critical of how the it was handled. He isn’t critical of the National Guard however. He says that they were kids his age who were poorly trained, and were equipped improperly. They were scared, and the school was chaotic. Innocent people were killed. Most of the crowd was not causing a problem. What do you guys think? Were the National Guard a bunch of murderous monsters? Do you think they planed on killing people?

    May be I will break down and call my brother-in-law. So you can get some first hand information from someone who lived on the campus during the time.
     
  12. andcrs2

    andcrs2 Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,232
    Likes Received:
    6
    Have you read the linked article/quoted passage above?
    Do you believe it possible 60% of the NG had their act together while the other 40% didn't?

    If so, who's responsible for placing the 40% in a position beyond their level of competence?
     
  13. shaggie

    shaggie Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    19
    I'd be interested in hearing your brother-in-laws remarks. I've listened to talks by Dean Kahler, Alan Canfora, and others who were on campus at that time and I've chatted briefly with Kahler. There's no question there was chaotic behavior on the campus and in Kent. It started with the protestors in response to Nixon's invasion of Cambodia but was escalated by devisive remarks and actions by people like Rhodes, older people who knew better than to talk and act the way they did.

    The May 4th rally was peaceful until the guard swept across the commons and into the plactice field. One has to question what the rationale was to act pre-emptively when nothing at that gathering seemed to be going wrong.

    I've never heard a good reason why the guard fired into the group. Saying that they were trying to fire into the air and missed is far-fetched. Saying that some fired because others fired doesn't answer the question either. Why did the others fire?

    There were verbal exchanges between the parking lot group and the guard and hand gestures given (one protestor was holding up the middle finger when he was shot). My gut feeling is that there were a few in Troop G that were so annoyed and humiliated by the protestors in the parking lot that they open fired. Others guard members may have followed not realizing what was going on. I can't prove that any more than someone else can prove they did it in self-defense. I just have never heard a good reason as to why the shooting started.

    The presence of Canfora (the flag waver) near the front of the group in the parking lot and the fact that many of the bullets that passed him and struck people further down in the parking lot has always made me suspicious that they were aiming for him in particular because of his symbolic status. Again, I can't prove that, but it has always left me suspicious.

    The fact that guard members in Troop G waited until they were at the top of the hill and fired when they were apparently in no imminent danger has also made me suspicious. The fact that about a dozen guard members turned together and fired is suspicious. It's hard to imagine that was an unplanned response.
     
  14. SpliffVortex

    SpliffVortex Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,776
    Likes Received:
    2
    i think shag is on the money .also many national guard are the bit older guys that have allready serve they have a difrent set of mind hes not the fresh young 18 year old. does any one knows the age group of the guardmans that would expain a lot .
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice