I read on Yahoo! News that a Kent State "victim" will be releasing a recording. But, there were no victims. Let's get it straight here: the rioters attacked the National Guardsmen, and the soldiers were forced to fire. I know a man who was paralyzed in the incident, and he says he shouldn't have done what he did. That wasn't a protest. It was a violent riot, in which buildings were burned down. As a resident of Ohio, I support what the soldiers did, even though I wasn't around at the time of the incident. Besides, it could have been worse. They could have used machine guns, and killed all of the rioters. Or used grenades, but they were merciful. I support peoples right to protest the government, but when it becomes violent, force must be used to break it up. My dad fought in Vietnam, and those people who protested called him all sorts of vile names. Those people were not Americans. They were terrorists.
2007-05-01 04:54:01 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Amen. Even if there was an order to fire it was absolutely justified IMO. There are no "innocent bystanders" in a riot.
2007-05-01 08:36:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
True, it was a violent riot, but the guardsmen didn't fire on the students who would have been a threat to them (the ones close to them), but into a parking lot. The government criticized both the protesting students and the inexperienced Guardsmen when the President's Commission was held. Both were at fault. 2 of the 4 students killed were walking to class, one was a campus ROTC member who was over 300 feet away from the protest, you can't be much more of an innocent victim than that. The other 2 were protesters.
I believe the recording to be released is of the guards milling around, kneeling, aiming, standing up, talking to each other and then firing. A student taped it on reel to reel from his dorm window.
2007-05-01 12:26:21 · answer #2 · answered by erin7 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Kent state was a mistake on the part of the people who sent guardsmen with loaded weapons and no training or experience in crowd control to a college campus to confront demonstrating students. I remember hearing interviews with some members of the guard and they were as horrified by what had happened as the country was.
No community in the country would allow the police to shoot a volley of bullets at a lawbreaker where there was a high probability of killing bystanders, even if the lawbreaker was a murderer. To do so to disperse a crowd is a thing revolutions are made of. Remember the Boston massacre for your American history classes.
2007-05-01 13:10:18 · answer #3 · answered by meg 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There were some victims. People in this country have a right to protest. But, some people did get out of hand. The victims are the ones who thought they were part of a peaceful protest.
Having said that, I agree that the National Guard was not at fault there. Once violence broke out, they were within their rights (and duty) to stop it by whatever means they thought the best. That there were innocent victims, I believe there were. But that happens during protests that go bad. Do I feel for the innocent ones? Yes. Do I blame the National Guard? No. I blame the ones who turned a peaceful protest into violence.
2007-05-01 12:24:18 · answer #4 · answered by Kevin C 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
There were no 'rioters' at Kent state, just a bunch of idiot college kids protesting.
That the Federal Government kills its own citizenry is a searing indictment to the failure of democracy & due process in this country.
2007-05-01 13:19:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I beg to disagree. Even during riots there are bystanders.
In the remaining part, you are perfectly correct. The "protesters" were violent rioters.
2007-05-01 12:09:21 · answer #6 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋