posted on March 5, 2003 08:42:22 AM new
Throwing rocks and setting a fire DOES NOT justify shooting bullets into a crowd of people, students or not. I suppose the student shot in the back while running away should sound a bit familiar? I remember when this happened and no one I knew was cheering about it at all. Only those heartless people who mistook patriotism for hatred of those who thought differently about the war were cheering. I see far too much of that going on with this war debate.
posted on March 5, 2003 08:46:42 AM newThe arson happened the night before. This rally started as a peaceful protest. The presence of the National Guard, escalated the protest.
No it didn't start as a peaceful. The campus WAS CLOSED due to the arson and rioting. All students were told to leave. They didn't. They continued to throw rocks and riot and would not disperse.
The presence of the National Guard was due to the arson on a tax payer building and the inability of the police to stop the mob.
How many more buildings should the State of Ohio allowed them to burn before they put a stop to it ?
After Kent State, the trouble makers didn't return to Ohio.
posted on March 5, 2003 09:07:15 AM new No one fired on peaceful protestors at Kent State.
Yes, the National Guard did fire on peaceful protestors at Kent State...some only walking across campus were killed and wounded. One is completely paralized.
There is no excuse for the death of students...some only walking across the campus at the time. They didn't light the fire.
The students who participated in that protest contributed to the end of the Vietnam war and for that they should be praised.
posted on March 5, 2003 09:14:04 AM new
They had no business where they were at. Once the shots rang out, everyone there claimed they were just passing through. They were told to dispearse and leave the area, they charged the national Guard and had been bombardingthem with projectiles the whole time. It was never a peaceful protest. The National Guard did what was necessary to put an end to the criminal rioters.
They didn't stop the Vietnam war, they prolonged it as the Commie Vietnamese leaders claim, and they also have the blood on their hands for t=all the thousands murdered bythe communists, and the thousands that drown trying to leave the country, and the millions that are living under a communist dictatorship.
posted on March 5, 2003 09:23:20 AM new
I am amazed that even when the communist leadership of Vietnam claims that the "peace' protesters caused them not to enter the peace process after losing every battle fought in Vietnam, the left refuses to admit that these protests are a mistake.
This is a representitive democracy. If evey anarchist and commie that riots at the World Bank meetings and organizes these "peace' protests would vote, we would not have had such a close presidential election, nor a republican majority in Congress.
The only people taht I know who whine and cry in public when they don't get there way are babies.
You aint seen nothing yet. Because the Dems can't find anything worth protecting or fighting for in America, the republicans shall now begin stacking the federal courts.
One liberal Supreme Court justice dies or retires while Bush is in office and things begin to change drastically.
And the left deserves it. They had better wake up.
posted on March 5, 2003 09:25:57 AM new
An interesting observation about the current anti-war/anti-totalitarian movement is that it began with the older citizenry and is creating an awakening among youth; whereas, with Vietnam the recognition began with youth and the awakening spread to the older citizens.
posted on March 5, 2003 09:45:21 AM new
WHAT TYPE OF RALLY WAS HELD AT NOON ON MAY 4? THE TRUTH
At the conclusion of the anti-war rally on Friday, May 1, student protest leaders had called for another rally to be held on the Commons at noon on Monday, May 4. Although University officials had attempted on the morning of May 4 to inform the campus that the rally was prohibited, a crowd began to gather beginning as early as 11 a.m. By noon, the entire Commons area contained approximately 3000 people. Although estimates are inexact, probably about 500 core demonstrators were gathered around the Victory Bell at one end of the Commons, another 1000 people were "cheerleaders" supporting the active demonstrators, and an additional 1500 people were spectators standing around the perimeter of the Commons. Across the Commons at the burned-out ROTC building stood about 100 Ohio National Guardsmen carrying lethal M-1 military rifles.
Substantial consensus exists that the active participants in the rally were primarily protesting the presence of the Guard on campus, although a strong anti-war sentiment was also present. Little evidence exists as to who were the leaders of the rally and what activities were planned, but initially the rally was peaceful.
posted on March 5, 2003 09:57:39 AM new
Let's see, a building burned down, rocks being thrown, an order to disperse and leave the area, and they will not leave.
I don't care if the people "gathering" on May 4th were singing Cum By Ya, it was an unlawful assembly which can not be considered "peaceful" under any circumstances.
Just because arsonists and rioters are not actually commiting crimes when they re-assemble the next day doesn't make the assembly "peaceful".
As I said before, once the line was crossed, the only "peaceful" thing the rioters could do was disperse and leave the campus. Staying there in and of itself was an unpeaceful act.
posted on March 5, 2003 10:29:59 AM new
Call them Quakers if you like, but the evidence will not bear you out that the assembly was lawful or peaceful.
posted on March 5, 2003 10:49:00 AM new
The rally which began as a peaceful protest was disrupted by the presence of the National Guard carrying lethal M=1 rifles. When they chose to respond to a rock with a bullet, the rally became a tragedy.
The governor overreacted by calling in the National Guard with orders that could be interpreted as permission to shoot to kill students.
posted on March 5, 2003 11:09:59 AM new
The Guard was perfectly within their rights to open fire when the rioter/quakers charged down the hill.
This was not a case of the Guard charging and shooting "students". The students had already pelted the guard with rocks and was charging down the hill towards the guard.
The guard was rightfully called in to protect life and property and restore order.
If you burn down buildings and refuse to leave a disaster area when ordered to, and then throw rocks at the Guard, you can lawfully be shot, as it should be.
There were never any "peaceful" protesters shot at Kent State. There was no peaceful protest at Kent State.
posted on March 5, 2003 11:31:37 AM new
There are many more worthy causes than protesting war.
Why don't you try protesting agianst murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein ?
How about the desecration of world art and cultural treasures being destroyed by muslims ?
How about protesting France and Germany, and Russia, trading with Iraq and providing them with materiale' and hard currency to produce weapons.
How about protesting North Korea for starving its people and developing weapons to blackmail the world into supporting its dictator and failed economic system?
How about protesting against communist Vietnam and its "re-education" camps, and the people it imprisons or kills for political reasons.
The war that will liberate the Iraqi people and put the middle east on a course towards democracy is the last thing to protest, unless of course you admire Hussein or just hate America.
posted on March 5, 2003 11:34:52 AM new
I'm going to ask you again, Reamond. You've said that the protestors were on the hill and charged down it to the Guardsman. Is what you've said a true statement of the position of the Guardsmen and the killed/wounded?
Out of the 4 killed, 2 were passersby, not protestors, but students on their way to classes. And yet you've said that the campus was closed, didn't you?
posted on March 5, 2003 11:50:00 AM new
>What happens when we, as free Americans, become afraid to express our views and opinions? How free are we then?
I jusrt wanted to say, Cheryl, how nicely done that post was that the above refers to. Our governement and media does its best to keep us in disunity, disorganized, disgused, dismayed, and at each other's throats over the most stupid of things - Patriotism! That's right - Patriotism. When it splits us apart, it becomes a dirty word. That's because Patriotism is supposed to help us all come together. We are a land of Tolerance, so says our Founding Fathers in the principles that they wrote to found our country upon. Intolerance is the enemy and when mixed with Patriotism, is the worst offender of all. It puts brother against brother, father against son, neighbor against neighbor. It is a fundamental evil when so corrupted. Therefore, Patriotism is only a good thing when you respect other's opinions which might or might not coincide with your own.
posted on March 5, 2003 12:00:16 PM new
The campus was closed, the students charged down the hill.
If you could see the whole of the infamous picture, you could see the hill.
The Guard wasn't near the students. The students charged down the hill towards the guard and the guard fired.
That is why all of the guardsmen were acquitted at trial. The Guard did not seek out a confrontation with the students, they ordered them to disperse and leave, the campus was closed, the students charged down the hill towards the guard and the guard shot them.
They had already burned down a a tax payer building and had been throwing rocks at police and the guard and tear gas was tried.
But I would add that even if they had not charged down the hill, once ordered to disperse and including the fact that arson had already been committed and they were pelting police and guard with rocks, the guard had the right to open fire.
posted on March 5, 2003 01:21:05 PM new
(March 5, 11:10 a.m. AST) -Today, High school and college students across the country walked out of class to protest a war with Iraq, holding a series of rallies organizers predicted would be the biggest campus demonstrations since the Vietnam War.
Tens of thousands of students at more than 300 colleges and universities pledged to join in the anti-war protests, according to the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition.
Thousands of students also rallied for peace in Britain, Sweden, Spain, Australia and other countries.
posted on March 5, 2003 02:10:27 PM new
You can argue back and forth about Kent State as long as you like. I personally believe the National Guard held a high degree of culpability in those deaths.
But you can't argue that Americans todaydon't have the right to freedom of speech (at least until Attorney General Ashcroft gets around to taking it away.) They have the right to peacefully assemble. They have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
As Americans, we have the right to protest the war. We also have a right to criticize people who protest the war, but that's as far as it goes. People who are physically assaulted while lawfully protesting should be treated like any other assault victims, and those who assault them should be arrested.
As for the T-shirt guy, I wouldn't be surprised if the mall people aren't down on their knees begging him to take a settlement right now. An anti-war T-shirt is pretty close to "pure speech" and unless it used profanity (which it apparently didn't) the mall people are on very shaky ground. While a mall is private property, it is also "dedicated to public use" and there's a high standard a mall's management must meet before it attempts to regulate speech on its premises.
Justice Black wrote in the landmark case Marsh v. Alabama: "The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it....." The court has upheld that principle ever since. For a good summary of speech issues on private property, check out this Freedom Forum page.
posted on March 5, 2003 02:59:18 PM new
ARTICLE 19
of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
on December 10, 1948:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers."
posted on March 5, 2003 04:59:07 PM new
Kent State University moved into the national spotlight. The shooting and its aftermath were investigated by the press, committees, and commissions. The Scranton Commission concluded that "the indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."
The legal struggle which followed spanned the decade of the seventies. Local, state, and federal courts became involved in extensive criminal and civil proceedings. The first judicial activity involved a State Grand Jury investigation of the shootings. In October of 1970, the Grand Jury issued indictments against 25 individuals, most of whom were Kent students. In the ensuing state criminal trials in late 1971, only three of the defendants were found guilty.
A Federal Grand Jury investigation of the shootings did not begin until December of 1973. In March 1974, the Federal Grand Jury issued indictments against eight of the Ohio National Guard enlisted men but, in the fall of 1974, the judge on th federal criminal trial ordered all charges dropped at mid-trial because of insufficient evidence.
A series of civil law cases began shortly after the criminal trials concluded. The nine wounded students and the parents of the four students who were killed had been prevented for several years from bringing civil action against public officials and members of the Ohio National Guard because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, a principal that provides that a soverign entity cannot be sued without its consent. This doctrine was modified by the U.S. Supreme Court, however, in the landmark case of Scheuer vs. Rhodes in 1974, thus clearing the way for a federal civil trial in 1975. The parents and wounded students sought $46 million in damages against Ohio Governor James Rhodes, guard officers, guard enlisted men, and Robert White, President of Kent State University in 1970. On August 27, 1975, the jury returned its verdict: by a 9-3 vote, it found none of the defendants liable for damages.
The case was appealed by attorneys for the parents and students, and in September 1977, a three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a new trial had to be held because the trial judge in the 1975 case had improperly handles a threat to a juror. The appeals court also ordered that former President Robert White be dropped from the list of defendants.
In December of 1978, the retrial began but, under the leadership of Judge William K. Thomas, an out-of-court settlement was reached. The parents, students, and their attorneys received $675,000 paid by the State of Ohio. In addition, the 28 defendants signed the following statement:
"In retrospect, the tragedy of May 4, 1970, should not have occured. The students may have believed that they were right in continuing their mass protest in response to the Cambodian invasion, even though this protest followed the posting and reading by the University of an order to ban rallies and an order to disperse. [the university, however, was not closed] These orders have since been determined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to be lawful.
"Some of the guardsmen on Blanket Hill, fearful and anxious from prior events, may have believed in their own minds that their lives were in danger. Hindsight suggests that another method would have solved the confrontation. Better ways must be found to deal with such confrontations.
"We devoutly wish that a means had been found to avoid the May 4 events culminating in the guard shootings and the irreversible deaths and injuries. We deeply regret those events and are profoundly saddened by the deaths of four students and the wounding of nine others that resulted. We hope that the agreement to end this litigation will help to assuage the tragic memories regarding that sad day."
