Why is it that when violence errupts at protests and offensive action is taken by the police or National Guard, or whomever, people are always appalled at the "misuse of force". I hate to say that the students at Kent State deserved it, and I'm sure this is really gonna piss some people off, but I don't feel the least bit sorry for the students that got shot that day. I don't feel 1 ounce of sympathy for the people that got shot. First of all I think that they brought the "military occupation" of their campus on themselves. Since when is burning and looting buildings and businesses in the name of a protest not worthy of reprocussions?? Second, they were warned how many times of unlawful assembly. The Army is locked and loaded and you're still gonna talk shit? That's kind of like sticking your dick in a bees nest and wondering why you got stung. I saw a lengthy documentary on the events at Kent State which included many interviews with witnesses and "survivors" and it astounded me. They all said how scared they were to see a military presence on campus, yet they still defied civil order and continued to assemble. They were warned, and continued to assemble. The soldiers advanced and took a firing postion, and warned the protesters to disband. Did they? Did they do what any logical thinking person who basically had a firing squad in front of them do? What did they do? They threw rocks. They charged and attacked the Guard members and got what was coming. Now, can anybody be surprised at the outcome? Sure, it was very tragic, but can you honestly feel sorry for them? How many times do you have to tell somebody before they listen? Does freedom of assembly mean anytime anywhere?? One would expect the protests at RNC to get a little out of hand. With the current global shituation and such passionate critics of the Bush administration, I don't think it's going to take much to spark this fire, whether it be at the RNC or any other protest. Is anybody going to be surprised when violence errupts??? If this does happen I forsee Bush getting blamed for taking away liberals constitutional rights when the protests are broken up. I can't wait to see the irony of protesters of creating violence in the name of stopping violence. What a mess this could turn out to be. Does anybody think that the anti-war protest with be peaceful?? When do you all think that a persons right to assemble should be limited, if at all??
i actually agree with you, to an extent, on this. But I continue to have sympathy for those who were murdered, my reasoning being this---> throwing rocks vs. firing squad. i don't see death as a reasonable punishment here.
You're right. You succeeded in pissing me off. Congratulations. 1) Several of the people who were shot at Kent State were innocent bystanders who had nothing to do with the protest. 2) Peaceful protesting (and it WAS *mostly* peaceful until the military got involved) is a legitimate right. They had no right to order the protesters to disband in the first place. 3) The actions of a few violent protesters do not warrant the use of force against innocent protesters. This kind of collective punishment is the mindset of al-Qaeda. 4) If scary guys with guns order you to disband, is it a good idea to throw rocks at them? Probably not. Are those actions worthy of the death penalty? No. 5) The reason the national guard was sent to Kent State was not because the protests were getting too violent. Sure, there were a few incidents of violence, but no more than anywhere else in the country in the wake of Nixon's assault on Cambodia. The reason the national guard was sent was because Jimmy Rhodes wanted a photo-op and his name in the papers.
You should see some of the protests that go on with teens in Japan. They throw all kinds of things. It makes Kent look like a joke. The police have never killed anyone there. Which documentary did you watch? Most of the students shot at Kent were a hundred yards away or more from the guard. Two who were killed weren't part of the protest. They were students going to class. The protestors didn't storm the guard. One of the guard groups turned and fired without warning. That's well documented. When people say rocks were thrown, there were some protestors who were throwing pieces of gravel from the parking lot and they were far away from the guard. Rhodes had a knee jerk reaction for calling in the guard for minor problems. He called the guard hundreds of times during his tenure as governor. The Kent incident gave him an opportunity to get some publicity for his law and order campaign theme. It was wrong for the ROTC building to be burned down. No one knows who burned downed the building or which people were responsible for the violence in downtown Kent. One has to expect some kind of response for that type of action. Killing 4 people and wounding nine isn't a just reaction though. http://dept.kent.edu/may4/may4.htm
Well, The National Guard considers "The Kent State Incident" to be a mistake and an embarassment, so that should at least somewhat answer your questions. Supposedly, from what I've studied, The Guardsmen messed up and ended up in a locked position with some kind of fence on one side and protesters everywhere else. They were never supposed to shoot off any rounds, but somehow, whether it was miscommunication or a mindless order, they did shoot. They claim they shot because they didn't know how else they would "break free" from the area. So, you are saying that due to The National Guard's mistakes, that innocent students at Kent State deserved to die? If that's what you're saying... you're messed up.
and of course, due to the fact that theyre humbly embarassed by the occurance, they're able to get away with it. gee it's just sooo too damn bad the rest of the world doesnt work this way.
WHAT EVENTS LED DIRECTLY TO THE SHOOTINGS? 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.
Shag you seem to know quite a bit about the situation. The documentary I saw was on the History Channel and covered Kent State, Waco, and I believe Ruby Ridge. I should take back that I said I feel no sympathy, that isn't really so. I do not believe live rounds should have been used, even though "less-lethal" projectiles were not developed yet. I guess the whole stupidity of the Waco and Ruby Ridge showdown set me off a little. I believe in the documentary they stated that the businesses that were looted were done by some angry "anti-war" students that got a little crazy after bar close. I thought they knew who set the ROTC fire also but I don't recall. My point I guess is that I don't believe people deserve the right to assembly if it is disrupting civil order. I saw on the news a couple weeks ago that there is a group of "pro-war" advocates that are showing up and starting problems at "anti-war" rallys. If this group shows a tendency to start violence I don't believe they should have a right to assembly. The same goes for anti-war protesters. Turning a peaceful protest into a violent one sort of takes away the credibility of the group anyways, and definitely gives them a bad reputation. So why do it. Kind of the same scenario as the ELF. I don't know anybody that takes them seriously regarding environmental concernes because of their violent, destructive nature. Alright, now I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about and am distracted with cramming some food down my throat and the damned TV. My final words are: Kent State should have never happened. Not because the National Guard shouldn't have been there, but because the students never should have taken their protest to the extreme that they did. The root of the problem was themselves. Think of how many other anti-war protests happened during the era and had zero casualties.
I think of the democratic national convention in 1968. It seems there was a lot more violent activity there than at Kent State. I don't believe anyone got killed, though many got beaten. I think Kent was a case that escalated and got out of hand. The protests did get violent, but then Rhodes also escalated it by bringing in the guard and dropping tear gas bombs from a helicopter. There may have been a way of infiltrating the protestors with plain clothes people who could have arrested those who made the first moves at starting the trouble. They use this technique in Europe and other places for potential riots at soccer games and other events. When the guard was brought in, it created a well-defined symbolic target for the protestors, which didn't help any. There were also a lot of devisive remarks made by Rhodes and the protestors which didn't help matters either. All in all, it was an unfortunate incident. I wouldn't want to see anything like this at the RNC or DNC conventions this summer.
In the '60s non-violence trainings were mostly for civil rights protests and consisted of how to take a beating from the cops. Today, non-violence trainings focus on difusing situations. If there is an violent incident, the protesters in the vicinity take it on themselves to stop the violence. The attitude of "Kill the Pigs!" has been replaced by the non-violence attitude that I hope we are all familiar with.
