posted on March 5, 2003 05:09:09 PM new
hmmmm 3 students found guilty and none of the guardsmen... looks as if they were in the right... and students in the wrong.
Ohio paid just to finally shut them up... like giving a pacifier to a baby.
posted on March 5, 2003 05:59:31 PM new
Sorry Reamond - I worked for the state of Ohio and knew an unbiased source of information. The maintenance workers who were on campus working.
When I went up there with a truck a few days after the shooting the plumbers and grounds keepers told me all the normal classes were being held. They were determained not to allow the protest to shut down the university. Some of them were within sight and knew enough to hit the dirt and crawl for cover when the shooting started. They were at work like normal because nothing was shut down. Some of the kids far away probably did not even know what the sound of gun fire was, although they were in range.
When the Guard used tear gas they had to put on their own masks and they fogged up and obscured their vision and the young guys being pelted with crap and unable to see panicked and started shooting 30.06 FMJ every which way. I walked around to look and there were bullet holes all over. Holes through trees - through steel sculptures and big chips in stonework and buildings. One girl in particular was hit and you could see a huge blood stain on the sidewalk in a big flat open area between buildings a couple hundred yards away from where they were shooting. Basically again you have lots of strong opinions based on what someone else told you. Well they lied to you bunky.
[ edited by gravid on Mar 5, 2003 06:05 PM ]
posted on March 5, 2003 06:03:03 PM new
I'll bet you were there Gravid. You don't know what you're talking about.
12- the civil case/settlement is pretty much meaningless. The criminal cases against the students are important. The standard of evidence for a civil case is a perponderance of evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.
re: the Shopping Mall T-shirt case.
The guy will lose his case if he sues. The Supreme Court has already ruled that a privately owned shopping mall is not a public arena encompassing the First Amendment.
[ edited by REAMOND on Mar 5, 2003 06:10 PM ]
posted on March 5, 2003 06:08:16 PM new
When you have officials lying through their teeth what difference does the degree of evidence required make?
They had a verdict all set before hand.
Why is it so hard to bellieve that politicians are liars when it happens over and over?
posted on March 5, 2003 06:11:48 PM new
When you can't fit the truth to you're baseless opinions gravid, you make things up and then throw another conspiracy theory out there.
posted on March 5, 2003 07:07:06 PM new
When I read that account and view the pictures it is clear to me that the students were on the flat and the National Guard were on the hill.
I was a college age student at the time and I remember seeing the news footage that day and I never saw the students running AT the NG. They were running away.
We seem to be headed in this same direction again, with the pro war folks calling the anti war folks traitors. We haven't learned a thing.
If anyone had the right to protest it was the young people that were being forced into military duty for a war that was total folly.
posted on March 5, 2003 07:17:53 PM new
"May 4,All officials -- Guard, Kent State University, City of Kent -- assumed that the Guard was now in charge of the campus and that all rallies were illegal. Thus, University leaders printed and distributed on Monday morning 12,000 leaflets indicating that all rallies, including the May 4th rally scheduled for noon, were prohibited as long as the Guard was in control of the campus."
Classes were closed, and the Guard wasin charge of the campus.
"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."
I'll stick with people testifying under oath in a criminal trial before I believe an opinion piece by comeone that is obviously hostile to the National Guard and the State of Ohio.
But as I said earlier, there is no right to assemble or protest in an unlawful manner. There was nothing lawful or peaceful with the protesters, and they were shot and order restored.
Why did the Guradsmen shoot ?
"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. Some authors (e.g., Michener, 1971 and Grant and Hill, 1974) agree with this assessment. Much more importantly, 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."
[ edited by REAMOND on Mar 5, 2003 07:21 PM ]
[ edited by REAMOND on Mar 5, 2003 07:23 PM ]
posted on March 5, 2003 07:32:27 PM new
Hhhhhhmmmmm...this one sounds pretty unbiased to me. It mention students streaming in and out of the school building. Guess they must have been open.
Dunno, Reamond but it looks like you might be wrong about at least that part.Seems to me that people that were there disagree with you, as do people that saw it on TV.News was better in those days, not as biased. We were actually able to watch the war as it happened, and to watch the 1000's of body bags as they were brought home. Not to mention the maimed men when they arrived back in the states.
I would trust the news from 1970 a lot more than I would trust it now.But I digress.
posted on March 5, 2003 07:58:10 PM new
And if you like history here is one that discusses other campus shootings.Student shooting was quite the pasttime in that time period.
Classes were closed AFTER the shootings as ambulances were taking the dead and wounded away.
Back at the site of the shootings, ambulances had arrived and emergency medical attention had been given to the students who had not died immediately. The ambulances formed a screaming procession as they rushed the victims of the shootings to the local hospital.
The University was ordered closed immediately, first by President Robert White and then indefinitely by Portage County Prosecutor Ronald Kane under an injunction from Common Pleas Judge Albert Caris. Classes did not resume until the Summer of 1970, and faculty members engaged in a wide variety of activities through the mail and off-campus meetings that enabled Kent State students to finish the semester.
posted on March 5, 2003 08:18:25 PM new
The campus was open. As a matter of fact, the famous photo of the girl kneeling by the body was taken by a photography student who was working in the school's photography lab that day, decided to take a break and see what was going on outside, took a few photos of the protestors and Guardsmen, figured it was over, and then the shooting started.
And Reamond's own pasted account belies his repeated claim that the protestors charged down the hill, rushing the Guardsmen.
He's partly right, there was a hill. The Guardsmen were on top of it, and fired down at the students below. We might say that the protestors were rushing UP the hill instead.... backwards even, since one of them was shot in the back.
This from Reamond's paste:
"...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..."
"...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..."
posted on March 5, 2003 09:13:57 PM new
from the NYT..............................
Mall Wants to Drop Peace T - Shirt Charges
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:20 p.m. ET
GUILDERLAND, N.Y. (AP) -- Officials at a mall where a man was arrested for refusing to remove an anti-war T-shirt asked Wednesday that trespassing charges against him be dropped.
Police said managers from Crossgates Mall called and asked that the complaint against Stephen Downs be withdrawn. Police Chief James Murley said he would support the mall's decision.
posted on March 5, 2003 09:37:53 PM new"the civil case/settlement is pretty much meaningless. The criminal cases against the students are important. The standard of evidence for a civil case is a perponderance of evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt"
Reamond thus declares that O.J. Simpson did NOT kill his wife.
posted on March 6, 2003 12:13:54 AM new
>Reamond thus declares that O.J. Simpson did NOT kill his wife.
Where REAMOND comes from, he talks about the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. Courts often have to rule on the letter of the law, but have leeway in deciding a case on the Intent. If a judge were to go strictly by the letter of the law, nearly every criminal would get off on some techicality. As it is, the judge interprets both the Intent of the laws and the Good of the Community as well as the letter of the law.
posted on March 6, 2003 03:31:42 AM new
As far as the Crossgate Mall T-shirt fiasco,
The mall had every right to ask them to take off the shirt or leave. Another Hack attorney looking for his 15 minutes in the spotlight? Now we have the Civil Liberties Union involved., another organization that does more bad then good.
Was it a good idea to arrest him? Hell no. It gave this moron a venue to get in the media.
"He was repeatedly told the mall was private property and what he was wearing was unacceptable, the same as if he went to someone's home wearing something unacceptable."
On Kent State...It was horrible that students got killed and fired upon. But looking at the other side of the equation. The Guards men were mostly young kids the same age as the students. They were scared as hell too.
Things were at a frenzy at the time. Most of the protests and rallies were not peaceful.
The thing that bothers me most is the credence given to high school students walking out of class.
If I remember correctly...I would have walked out of class for any reason, just to get out of school. Who is "The National Youth & Student Peace Coalition"?
As far as the right to disagree with the policies of our government. That's a right we have that I will fight for. Just like the troops in the Middle East are fighting for our rights and the rights of a free world.
posted on March 6, 2003 04:11:46 AM new
Good point Colin - I would have walked out of class for any reason, just to get out of school. A good test to prove that would be to give the students a day out of school for wanting Saddam removed and see how many stay in class.
On the t-shirt. Watched the father [attorney] and son be interviewed last night. The cause of what some see as an 'over reaction' at the mall was that same mall had a previous problem when an anti-war demonistration occurred inside the mall recently. And the father and son both were aware of that. The father is the one who brought that up. The 'mind set' [when they were asked to leave] was that this might be the beginning of another mall protest and the mall employees were looking to avoid that.
Stories usually look different when one hears all the facts....not just that some poor attorney buys an anti war shirt, puts it on, then goes to get lunch and is asked to leave.
posted on March 6, 2003 04:23:46 AM new
The attorney's 31 year old son removed his T-shirt. At least he had some common sense.
This is from the Time Union, Local paper here in Albany, NY.
According to statements given the police, a customer complained to Macy's security that Downs and his 31-year-old son, Roger, were arguing with a group of individuals, and "was afraid of what might happen."
A mall security officer asked them to remove their shirts, the statements read. Charges were filed, which Murley said gave the police officer no choice but to arrest him. Downs denied confronting anyone.
posted on March 6, 2003 04:26:28 AM new
Guess I'm seeing communists around every corner again. Yep...they're on the The National Youth & Student Peace Coalition members list.
posted on March 6, 2003 07:35:03 AM new
"I suppose "Pro Genocide" tee shirts would be perfectly OK? "
Only if no one complained.
Helen, I may be mistaken but I thought you once stated you were a pacific. If so, maybe you can answer a question for me. Will a pacific lay down their life for their beliefs?
Amen,
I doubt it.
Reverend Colin
