8
   

Four Dead In O-Hi-O

 
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:08 am
@High Seas,
I'm aware of your delusion that you are the champion of truth and justice. That is not any good reason for me to believe that. The contention that the legal whitewash of the Guard's behavior at Kent State involved a unbiased and thorough consideration of all the "facts" would be laughable, were it not the subject of an unnecessary tragedy. You have not responded to the point that time and again, professional police forces dealt with far more volatile situations without resort to the use of wholesale lethal force. Please tell me when a professional police force resorted to volleys of rifle fire to respond to student protesters.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:08 am
@High Seas,
High Seas, sometimes "the rules" are anti-democratic & should be challenged. And perhaps the law was an ass in upholding such rules? The presence of armed soldiers on a college campus would seem to me to be more of a provocation than anything else.

Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:12 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
The presence of armed soldiers on a college campus would seem to me to be more of a provocation than anything else.


A good point worth repeating. It is also worth noting that Jim Rhodes, then Governor of Ohio, was hoping to burnish his Republican credentials in the hope of a run for the presidency by looking tough on student protesters. The Guard arrived at Kent, Ohio, with permission to carry loaded weapons because Rhodes had decided to "get tough" with the students.
High Seas
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:14 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
The presence of armed soldiers on a college campus would seem to me to be more of a provocation than anything else.

Yes, that point came up in most subsequent legal proceedings, which twice reached the Supreme Court. Again, the original link makes that clear:
Quote:
In May 1972, the AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU) filed several suits totaling $12 million in damages in federal district court against the Ohio National Guard and the State of Ohio. More than a year later, in August 1973, the Justice Department announced that it would reopen its investigation. Also in 1973, a federal grand jury reviewed Justice Department evidence and issued indictments against eight former guardsmen, officially charging them with violating the CIVIL RIGHTS of students. In 1974, a federal district judge acquitted the guardsmen of all charges, ruling that U.S. prosecutors failed to prove willful or intentional deprivation of civil rights.

Read more: Kent State Student Killings http://law.jrank.org/pages/7983/Kent-State-Student-Killings.html#ixzz0n3nlbk4q

OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:16 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Always the jackass, HS . . . if there is no dispute, then tell that to David,
who was the clown claiming there were no gas masks.
I do not remember hearing
of any gas masks at the time. The evidence presented here now
suggests that there were gas masks at the scene,
tho not necessarily at the time of the shooting.




Quote:
The legal whitewash of the event leaves me unimpressed. Plenty of protesters threw rocks in Chicago in 1968
That seems unlikely; the streets of Chicago are paved.
I 've been to Chicago and I saw no rocks lying on the paved roads nor on the paved sidewalks.
Admittedly, I have not been to the site of the convention.





Setanta wrote:
and despite the brutality of which the Chicago police were accused, they didn't seem to need to resort to lethal force to deal with the situation. The "Days of Rage" march in Chicago in 1969 involved thousands of demonstrators and included incidents of rock-throwing and the wanton destruction of property. The police did not resort to lethal force.
Maybe the police were not getting hit with rocks.


Setanta wrote:
I'm not surprised that a shill for conservative hysteria like you defends these shootings, though.
Well, we always care what surprizes u, Setanta. That 's the important thing.





David
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:23 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The evidence presented here now
suggests that there were gas masks at the scene,
tho not necessarily at the time of the shooting. (emphasis added)


http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e164/bobgeiger/Kent_State_Guardsmen.jpg

http://alancanfora.com/images/mi.jpg

Are you getting so old that your eyesight is failing you?

Are you suggesting that there were rocks on the streets and sidewalks of Kent State University? Do you really lack sufficient imagination to understand that people who throw rocks provide themselves for the eventuality that there will be no rocks lying in the streets?
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:25 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
High Seas, sometimes "the rules" are anti-democratic & should be challenged. And perhaps the law was an ass in upholding such rules? The presence of armed soldiers on a college campus would seem to me to be more of a provocation than anything else.
REGARDLESS, one who throws rocks at an armed man, PREDICTABLY, will get shot.
He who prefers not to get shot while defending the communist enemy
shoud not throw rocks.





David
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:32 am
@High Seas,
Quote:
In 1974, a federal district judge acquitted the guardsmen of all charges, ruling that U.S. prosecutors failed to prove willful or intentional deprivation of civil rights


It would be interesting to know what could have been considered a "willful or intentional deprivation of civil rights" of the students!
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:36 am
@Setanta,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The evidence presented here now
suggests that there were gas masks at the scene,
tho not necessarily at the time of the shooting. (emphasis added)


http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e164/bobgeiger/Kent_State_Guardsmen.jpg

http://alancanfora.com/images/mi.jpg
Setanta wrote:
Are you getting so old that your eyesight is failing you?

Are you suggesting that there were rocks on the streets and sidewalks of Kent State University?
It is undisputed (right?) that rocks were thrown at the National Guard troops
and your pictures show that confrontations were on unpaved ground, not on paved streets nor sidewalks.



Setanta wrote:
Do you really lack sufficient imagination to understand that people who throw rocks provide themselves
for the eventuality that there will be no rocks lying in the streets?
If thay do so with malice aforethought, then thay might bring ammunition with them.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:38 am
@msolga,
Quote:
In 1974, a federal district judge acquitted the guardsmen of all charges,
ruling that U.S. prosecutors failed to prove willful or intentional deprivation of civil rights
msolga wrote:
It would be interesting to know what could have been considered
a "willful or intentional deprivation of civil rights" of the students!
Maybe shooting them, if thay had NOT thrown rocks.





David
msolga
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:39 am
@Setanta,
You're wasting your time, Setanta.
No matter what evidence you provide, you're going to get the "rocks" defense. That overrules everything! Wink
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:39 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Rocks again.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:42 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
You're wasting your time, Setanta.
No matter what evidence you provide, you're going to get the "rocks" defense. That overrules everything! Wink
Well, that 's what precipitated and controlled the situation, Olga. NO rocks = no gunfire. I think that 's plain.

The hurling of the rocks was the competent producing cause of the gunfire.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:45 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
Rocks again.
Yes; thay are what made the gunfire happen. No rocks = no gunfire.

I wonder if those students were guilty of TREASON,
for giving aid and comfort to the communist enemy.





David
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:50 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Rocks again.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 08:08 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
Rocks again.
Yes; well, I also added the communist treason.





David
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 09:09 am
@msolga,
Here! HEre! You are so right . . . they were exercising the same right that the big D uses to say they deserved to be shot for. He doesn't see the irony.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 09:11 am
@Setanta,
An undeclared and therefore unConstitutional War
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 09:14 am
@Setanta,
What is interesting is that nearly half a century later, Tea Totalitarians are adopting some of the methods that civil rights protestors and anti-war marchers used . . . street theatre, costumes, placards, marches. Hmmm. Wonder how they would feel if some governor called out the National Guard on them?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 09:14 am
I'm guessing the Ohio National Guard were very poorly trained and I wouldn't want them near me in a combat situation.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New A2K is Anti-Free Speech - Question by Brandon9000
Oh My God - Discussion by cjhsa
Is free speech an illusion? - Question by Angelgz2
Does freedom of speech excuse preaching hate? - Discussion by izzythepush
Time To Boycott EA games? - Discussion by RexRed
respect or free speech? - Discussion by dyslexia
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/24/2021 at 12:28:00