why do liberals protest at kent state?

Question

may 4th has become a holy day and kent's campus has become a mecca for liberal protesters. when i ask what they are protesting, they say "the day the capitalist right wing pigs gunned down peaceful demonstrators". or they say "the guards had no right to be here".

i'm not saying the incident wasn't a tragedy, but people need to learn history before they protest. the guards WOULDN'T have been there if the protestors didn't burn down the ROTC building and if they were "peacefully" demonstrating, nobody would have been shot.

the guards were young and inexperienced and had no shields for protection as they were being pelted by bricks, stones, bottles, and tear gas bombs by an unruly mob. the protesters were warned several times to disperse and they didn't listen.

it was wrong for the guards to shoot at students, but the protestors were not blameless.

to greg r,

you are totally delusional. first of all, the guards didn't shoot at the students for burning down the ROTC building. they shot at them because they got out of hand. second, protesting doesn't dismiss you from the obeying the law nor does it give you the right to vandalize property and cause arson. third, i call them liberals because "capitalist right wing pigs" is a common term liberals use to describe their opponenets, and last, if you want to go back into history, the boston massacre was identical to the kent state incident. the colonists were throwing bricks and lit whiskey bottles at british soldiers and they retaliated by firing into the crowd.

remember history repeats itself??

just for the record, i am not trying to "justify" the shootings in any way shape or form. however, i don't and never will believe that the students were just peacefully demonstrating.

both sides were wrong.

Answer 1

Yes, especially since the protesters were being riled up by a communist underground group.

Protesters back then not today's.

Answer 2

There is nothing you or anyone can say that can justify the shooting of those students. I'm old enough to remember Kent State, it was horrifying. If you don't know the specifics of the incident, it would be a good idea to inform yourself fully before making any assumptions. A couple of riots and some demonstrations had been going on days before the shooting. The Guardsmen knew in these demonstrations that the students were throwing bottles and rocks. Yet they did not wear riot gear, and had no protection other than their helmets. They also had minimal training in riot control. Wiki has an informative and thoroughly detailed accounting of it. I have posted some of it below. There is no debate regarding the burning of the ROTC building or the rocks and bottles being thrown. But, in order to look at it objectively, the timeline and the details of how and when the actual shootings occurred have to be examined. I urge you to take a look at the details, therein lies the horror of what happened.

From Wiki:
"They had cleared the protestors from The Commons area, and many students had left, but many stayed and were still angrily confronting the soldiers, some throwing rocks and tear gas canisters. At the end of about ten minutes the Guardsmen began to retrace their steps back up the hill toward The Commons area. Some of the students on the Taylor Hall veranda began to move slowly toward the soldiers as the latter passed over the top of the hill and headed back down into The Commons.

At this point, a number of guardsmen at the top of the hill abruptly turned and fired into the students. The guardsmen directed their fire not at the closest students, who were on the Taylor Hall veranda, but at those on the grass area and concrete walkway below the veranda, at those on the service road between the veranda and the parking lot, and at those in the parking lot. Bullets were not sprayed in all directions, but instead were confined to a fairly limited line of fire leading from the top of the hill to the parking lot. Not all the soldiers who fired their weapons directed their fire into the students. Some soldiers fired into the ground while a few fired into the air. In all, 29 of the 77 guardsmen fired their weapons. A total of 67 bullets were fired. The shooting was determined to have lasted only thirteen seconds, although a New York Times reporter stated that "it appeared to go on, as a solid volley, for perhaps a full minute or a little longer." The question of why the shots were fired is widely debated. The Adjutant General of the Ohio National Guard told reporters that a sniper had fired on the guardsmen, which itself remains a debated allegation. Many guardsmen later testified that they were in fear for their lives, which was questioned partly because of the distance of the wounded students. Time magazine later concluded that "triggers were not pulled accidentally at Kent State"—a conclusion also reached by several studies about the tragedy. The President's Commission on Campus Unrest avoided the question of why the shootings happened, but harshly criticized both the protesters and the Guardsmen, concluding that "the indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."

Answer 3

How do you know it is only 'liberals protesting' at Kent State? Did you ask them, "are you a liberal or a conservative"? Did they wear name tags that said 'liberal'? That is like me asking, "why do conservatives only ask dumb questions?" The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantee our Right to Assemble and Freedom of Expression. That is what the students and demonstrators were doing. Why the hell did the government allow inexperienced and untrained 18 year olds on a campus with live ammo? The fact that the ROTC building was burned down gives the government the right to shoot and kill? It was a building, that's all. No one was inside, no one was hurt. What you are suggesting is that those who left England to pursue life, liberty and happiness in the 1700's should have done it 'peacfully'? Remember, the people that founded this country were not sheep and did not protest "peacefully". As the saying goes, freedoms are not free. If it costs a burned building, so be it. The building was insured and it was rebuilt - now what about the 4 lives of the innocent Americans?

Answer 4

The ones that were killed were not to blame for anything other than being murdered!

Kent State, May 4, 1970: America Kills Its Children
Twenty-five years ago this month, students came out on the Kent State campus and scores of others to protest the bombing of Cambodia-- a decision of President Nixon's that appeared to expand the Vietnam War. Some rocks were thrown, some windows were broken, and an attempt was made to burn the ROTC building. Governor James Rhodes sent in the National Guard.
The units that responded were ill-trained and came right from riot duty elsewhere; they hadn't had much sleep. The first day, there was some brutality; the Guard bayonetted two men, one a disabled veteran, who had cursed or yelled at them from cars. The following day, May 4th, the Guard, commanded with an amazing lack of military judgment, marched down a hill, to a field in the middle of angry demonstrators, then back up again. Seconds before they would have passed around the corner of a large building, and out of sight of the crowd, many of the Guardsmen wheeled and fired directly into the students, hitting thirteen, killing four of them, pulling the trigger over and over, for thirteen seconds. (Count out loud--one Mississippi, two Mississippi, to see how long this is.) Guardsmen--none of whom were later punished, civilly, administratively, or criminally--admitted firing at specific unarmed targets; one man shot a demonstrator who was giving him the finger. The closest student shot was fully sixty feet away; all but one were more than 100 feet away; all but two were more than 200 feet away. One of the dead was 255 feet away; the rest were 300 to 400 feet away. The most distant student shot was more than 700 feet from the Guardsmen.

Some rocks had been thrown, and some tear gas canisters fired by the Guard had been hurled back, but (though some of the Guardsmen certainly must know the truth) no-one has ever been able to establish why the Guard fired when they were seconds away from safety around the corner of the building. None had been injured worse than a minor bruise, no demonstrators were armed, there was simply nothing threatening them that justified an armed and murderous response. In addition to the demonstrators, none of whom was closer than sixty feet, the campus was full of onlookers and students on their way to class; two of the four dead fell in this category. Most Guardsmen later testified that they turned and fired because everyone else was. There was an attempt to blame a mysterious sniper, of whom no trace was ever found; there was no evidence, on the ground, on still photographs or a film, of a shot fired by anyone but the Guardsmen. One officer is seen in many of the photographs, out in front, pointing a pistol; one possibility is that he fired first, causing the others, ahead of him, to turn and fire. Or (as some witnesses testified) he or another officer may have given an order to fire. It is indisputable that the Guardsmen were not in any immediate physical danger when they fired; the crowd was not pursuing them; they were seconds away from being out of sight of the demonstration

Answer 5

Blameless in the regard that they shouldn't have been shot and killed for their actions! There is such a thing as excessive force, and this is a perfect example of it. The guards had other options to subdue or disburse the crowd, without resorting to such violence. The guards have a duty to protect people, and they are trained to handle these types of situations with the least harm possible. That did not happen here, which is why we all learn about the tradgedy in school, to hopefully remember and learn from our history's mistakes.

Answer 6

You're mad at the protesters for getting shot? Sure, setting the ROTC building to fire was unnecessary, but so was even thinking of using live ammunition on students. Rubber bullets were around back then, and so were waterhoses. With the alternatives, they didn't even have reason to use actual bullets. Nobody's mad at them for trying to stop the protests, they're mad because them, and you, use the protests to justify killing children. But they were Liberals anyway, right?

Answer 7

Yeah I see your perspective some...but , These National Guardsmen had an experienced leader. Ultimately , these students probably made a bad choice throwing rocks but, did they deserve to get shot for that choice.?...
I think it was a failure in sound judgment and leadership. No one had to die on that day. They did have tear gas back then. I just can not wrap my brain around giving an order to fire on these students..even if they were a little violent...arresst them, punish them..Just don't kill them...We look like china and the incident on the square when those students were killed...

Answer 8

have not you all observed, because of the fact the 2008 election - the international and the u . s . has been loosing that's COOL!!! Our government has been divided from Day One, It s been one vast capability grab for the ordinary public Leaders right here! no one is prepared to fulfill the different guy 0.5 way, and their stubbornness has affected the ordinary public! instructors do no longer supply a damn related to the little ones anymore. that's all approximately money! the place the Hell do they think of this is coming from? money would not advance on timber, it comes out of the wallet of no longer hassle-free working voters paychecks, looking forward to to get a return o their taxes by way of those instructors giving their little ones an preparation!!! top now, they are getting no longer something! And as for those Senators hiding out in Illinois - I say, enable them to stay there! they are performing like a bunch of spoilt teenagers, isn't it time for the Democrats to advance UP? and in the event that they insist on those strategies, then i could call for their resignations! None of them are performing the responsibilities they have been voted into workplace for!!!

Answer 9

not being blameless doesn't make unnecessary force OK... there are many "riot" techniques and materials (tear gas, less lethal bullets.. that sort of thing) and if they weren't equipped for the situation they are mandated to call for backup, not to open fire. people are going to be t'd off for a while to come over that... granted the mob went overboard on their protest.. but it in no way warranted being shot... you can rebuild a building.. dead is dead.

Answer 10

One side got ugly,then the other side got ugly.They protested what was wrong,but did something most people would not condone.A lot of them were still peaceful,though.

Answer 11

They wish they grew up in the 60's. The problem is that they ARE liberals. When do you ever see conservatives doing protests? You don't