Let's re-visit Kent State!

[Nosmo King]

Advance on troops, they will shoot you. Do it in a public venue, you can be responsible for the deaths of innocents.

End of story.

Under the rules of engagement laid down by a police state or Totalitarian dictator. But not in America.

Unless, obviously as you advocate, America should adopt the tactics and methods of a police state.

Shoot 'em all! Let God sort it out!

A recipe for the total loss of freedom.

But, then again, when have Conservatives been concerned for the freedoms of the citizens? Conservatives only want freedom for property owners and corporations. they show this attitude blatantly down through history.

Conservatives did not want women's rights. Ask Phyllis Schlafly. Conservatives don't want Civil Rights. Ask any Neo-Con. Conservatives don't want worker's rights. Ask any Conservative about the Department of Labor or the ALF-CIO. And Conservatives don't want any dissent that ain't a Tea Party. Look how they paint incidents of rudeness and violence perpetrated by those Red Necks and compare that attitude with shooting college kids as classes change.

And then, the Conservatives call themselves Americans! I can't see anything "American" about them.

 

[geauxtohell]

Advance on troops, they will shoot you. Do it in a public venue, you can be responsible for the deaths of innocents.

End of story.

Oh really? So it's the policy of the United States Military to fire into angry mobs in Iraq and Afghanistan who are protesting and "advancing" on them but are otherwise not shooting at them?

No it is not.

Your statement is absurd on it's face.

It's even more absurd when you consider that Kent State was on American soil and American citizens exercising their constitutional right to assemble were killed.

 

[candycorn]

You obviously don't know what constitutes a massacre.

People still get shot for advancing on cops, regardless of whether they're armed, or what they're armed with. The Guardsmen were scared, and they were being advanced on, and thought they heard gunfire.

Isn't it pretty cut and dried...throwing rocks at a guy with a gun wil likely get you shot? Be it a guardsman, police officer, private citizen in his yard, man on the street, etc... Especially if that guardsman, officer, citizen or man on the street see that you're part of a large group of people.

Tragedies occur when people do idiotic things. Perhaps the only thing more idiotic than firing at a person who threw a rock at you was throwing the rock in the first place.

 

[geauxtohell]

You obviously don't know what constitutes a massacre.

People still get shot for advancing on cops, regardless of whether they're armed, or what they're armed with. The Guardsmen were scared, and they were being advanced on, and thought they heard gunfire.

Isn't it pretty cut and dried...throwing rocks at a guy with a gun wil likely get you shot? Be it a guardsman, police officer, private citizen in his yard, man on the street, etc... Especially if that guardsman, officer, citizen or man on the street see that you're part of a large group of people.

Tragedies occur when people do idiotic things. Perhaps the only thing more idiotic than firing at a person who threw a rock at you was throwing the rock in the first place.

If one of my soldiers shot an Afghan civilian for throwing a rock at them, they would be in Leavenworth.

I doubt you'd find many soldiers who would defend such an action.

You guys are making a strong argument for the need for an ROE.

Here in America, you'd have a hard time with a "self defense" plea if you shot someone who threw a rock at you.

 

[candycorn]

You obviously don't know what constitutes a massacre.

People still get shot for advancing on cops, regardless of whether they're armed, or what they're armed with. The Guardsmen were scared, and they were being advanced on, and thought they heard gunfire.

Isn't it pretty cut and dried...throwing rocks at a guy with a gun wil likely get you shot? Be it a guardsman, police officer, private citizen in his yard, man on the street, etc... Especially if that guardsman, officer, citizen or man on the street see that you're part of a large group of people.

Tragedies occur when people do idiotic things. Perhaps the only thing more idiotic than firing at a person who threw a rock at you was throwing the rock in the first place.

If one of my soldiers shot an Afghan civilian for throwing a rock at them, they would be in Leavenworth.

I doubt you'd find many soldiers who would defend such an action.

You guys are making a strong argument for the need for an ROE.

Here in America, you'd have a hard time with a "self defense" plea if you shot someone who threw a rock at you.

Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[geauxtohell]

Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Yeah, that caviler bullshit attitude would work wonders at your (hypothetical) defense trial.

The sentiment here seems to be that "soldier will shoot people who throw rocks at them". I'd amend that to read "really bad soldiers shoot people who throw rocks at them".

So ironic considering the Boston Massacre was one of the main inciting events that lead to our revolution.

Of course, snowballs, rocks, whatever, those soldiers were totally justified to open fire on a group of people.

 

[candycorn]

Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Yeah, that caviler bullshit attitude would work wonders at your (hypothetical) defense trial.

Maybe, maybe not. I'd still rather be alive and wrong than dead right.

The sentiment here seems to be that "soldier will shoot people who throw rocks at them". I'd amend that to read "really bad soldiers shoot people who throw rocks at them".

Okay.

So ironic considering the Boston Massacre was one of the main inciting events that lead to our revolution.

Of course, snowballs, rocks, whatever, those soldiers were totally justified to open fire on a group of people.

In all honesty...and I haven't studied the Boston Massacre...if the soldiers were being assaulted by a mob...regardless of the nature of the assault...I can't blame them for opening fire. The next thing to be hurled could be more lethal.

Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

Again, I haven't studied that particular massacre. I'll defer to what I'm sure is your totally unbiased opinion on the behavior.

If there was a group of 50 people standing in a group and a couple of them were throwing "harmless" rocks at your wife and you had a gun, let me guess, you'd sit there and say, "Honey ,it's just rocks suck it up."

If it's your 18 year old son...does the dynamic change?

I know, you're going to go to the "soldier" card here and thats fine too; I don't think the human dynamic changes other than the human who threw the rocks is the one who incited the response.

Best of luck to you.

 

[Ravi]

The rocks were thrown after the NG tear gassed the students...who up until that point were having a peaceful demonstration on their campus.

 

[candycorn]

Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Yeah, that caviler bullshit attitude would work wonders at your (hypothetical) defense trial.

Well, that wouldn't be my defense in a court of law. That is just my feeling on the subject. In court, any number of defenses (I know you'll say insanity ha ha ha) would prove useful

The God I pray to would forgive me for my "sin" even if the courts would not.

 

[geauxtohell]

Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Yeah, that caviler bullshit attitude would work wonders at your (hypothetical) defense trial.

Maybe, maybe not. I'd still rather be alive and wrong than dead right.

The sentiment here seems to be that "soldier will shoot people who throw rocks at them". I'd amend that to read "really bad soldiers shoot people who throw rocks at them".

Okay.

So ironic considering the Boston Massacre was one of the main inciting events that lead to our revolution.

Of course, snowballs, rocks, whatever, those soldiers were totally justified to open fire on a group of people.

In all honesty...and I haven't studied the Boston Massacre...if the soldiers were being assaulted by a mob...regardless of the nature of the assault...I can't blame them for opening fire. The next thing to be hurled could be more lethal.

Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

Again, I haven't studied that particular massacre. I'll defer to what I'm sure is your totally unbiased opinion on the behavior.

If there was a group of 50 people standing in a group and a couple of them were throwing "harmless" rocks at your wife and you had a gun, let me guess, you'd sit there and say, "Honey ,it's just rocks suck it up."

If it's your 18 year old son...does the dynamic change?

I know, you're going to go to the "soldier" card here and thats fine too; I don't think the human dynamic changes other than the human who threw the rocks is the one who incited the response.

Best of luck to you.

The "human dynamic" doesn't excuse gunning down someone for throwing rocks.

I've already played the "soldier card". I recounted an example of where one of the guys in my battalion held his fire after someone threw a grenade at him. You can scroll back if you are interested.

Needless to say, the soldiers at Kent State were poorly trained. This is why the professional military does it's best to keep trigger-happy dumb-fucks off the line.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah, that caviler bullshit attitude would work wonders at your (hypothetical) defense trial.

Maybe, maybe not. I'd still rather be alive and wrong than dead right.



Okay.

So ironic considering the Boston Massacre was one of the main inciting events that lead to our revolution.

Of course, snowballs, rocks, whatever, those soldiers were totally justified to open fire on a group of people.

In all honesty...and I haven't studied the Boston Massacre...if the soldiers were being assaulted by a mob...regardless of the nature of the assault...I can't blame them for opening fire. The next thing to be hurled could be more lethal.

Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

Again, I haven't studied that particular massacre. I'll defer to what I'm sure is your totally unbiased opinion on the behavior.

If there was a group of 50 people standing in a group and a couple of them were throwing "harmless" rocks at your wife and you had a gun, let me guess, you'd sit there and say, "Honey ,it's just rocks suck it up."

If it's your 18 year old son...does the dynamic change?

I know, you're going to go to the "soldier" card here and thats fine too; I don't think the human dynamic changes other than the human who threw the rocks is the one who incited the response.

Best of luck to you.

The "human dynamic" doesn't excuse gunning down someone for throwing rocks.

I've already played the "soldier card". I recounted an example of where one of the guys in my battalion held his fire after someone threw a grenade at him. You can scroll back if you are interested.

Needless to say, the soldiers at Kent State were poorly trained. This is why the professional military does it's best to keep trigger-happy dumb-fucks off the line.

Okay.
Just giving you my 2 cents--about all it's worth I know.
Best of luck to you.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm not sure they were trigger happy.
Not well trained, probably.
Also scared.