Let's re-visit Kent State!

National Guardsmen cannot be sued because they didn't do anything wrong.
 
But the government did something wrong. Wrongful death.

And if you're incapable of seeing what the state did as deadly wrong that day, you're just a goose step and an outstretched right arm away from approving of concentration/internment/re-education camps.

And you think you are pro-American?
 
I didn't say the state didn't do anything wrong. I said the Guardsmen did nothing wrong, and the students weren't murdered.

Sorry if the difference eludes you.
 
xotoxi-albums-pictures-5-picture1470-alliebaba.jpg
 
I didn't say the state didn't do anything wrong. I said the Guardsmen did nothing wrong, and the students weren't murdered.

Sorry if the difference eludes you.
The Guardsmen locked and loaded live rounds in their rifles and fired those rifles into a crowd of students. Show me where and why that's not thought of as wrong. Legally, but especially morally. There is absolutely no justification in any realm of decent morality. There is no rationalization in anything celebrated as an American virtue.

The guard was morally, ethically and legally wrong.

Just because individual Guardsmen weren't sued the acts of their commanders can't be so blithly dismissed.
 
I've already shown it. Repeatedly. Backed up with multiple links from a variety of sites.

Get over it.
 
I've already shown it. Repeatedly. Backed up with multiple links from a variety of sites.

Get over it.
No. No you did not back this up with multiple links from a variety of sites.
You posted a site about martial law, one about violence at the University of Wisconsin and a site about the Students for a Democratic Society. You failed to post any references to the legal web spun after the events of May 4, 1970.

In short, Allie, you are both a liar and an idiot who deserves neither respect nor credence.
 
Wrong. I did post links, quotes and the legal determinations regarding Kent State.

So you are the liar.

But carry on.
 
Wrong. I did post links, quotes and the legal determinations regarding Kent State.

So you are the liar.

But carry on.
You cannot be trusted even while the thread is here before us! I looked at each page. The links I mentioned were the only ones you posted!

Do you think I'm as stupid as you?

tough call
 
None of the property destroyed belonged to the protesters.

Except, of course, their lives. But, what's a life when property has been damaged?

You're right. The campus authorities should have asked the little dears to please stop misbehaving and go to class.

or they could have declared Martial Law, and should have shut the campus down after the events from May 1st to May 3rd. They for one should have at least cancelled classes that day.
 
Except, of course, their lives. But, what's a life when property has been damaged?

You're right. The campus authorities should have asked the little dears to please stop misbehaving and go to class.

or they could have declared Martial Law, and should have shut the campus down after the events from May 1st to May 3rd. They for one should have at least cancelled classes that day.

Yes they could have. Maybe they should have.

Or the protestors could have just chosen to obey the law in the first place, and make all that crap unnecessary.
 
First of all, what happened to copyright rules about NOT posting entire long pieces.

Second? No. Let's not 'revisit' Kent State by engaging in revisionist history.

Revisionist? So the protesters were not throwing bottles rocks and garbage at the armed National Guardsmen? Exactly how was it so peaceful yet the National Guard had to be called and then a Unit so threatened that it opened fire?

Please. That's not even close to a proportional use of force. This is absurd. Bottles and rocks vs. bullets.

It was a massacre. This latest conservative attempt at revisionist history doesn't change the facts.

It it didn't change the perception of the American people at that time and it's effect on our involvement in Viet Nam influenced policy.

This is as bad as Coulter trying to make Tail-gunner Joe out to be a "great American".
 
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.
 
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.

Was the Boston Massacre a massacre?

After all, those colonists were throwing snowballs at the British soldiers!

Innocent people were gunned down when the Nasty Guard (a perjorative for the gaurd at the time, not now) fired recklessly into a crowd.

That's the thing about when you send a bullet down range into a crowd. You never know where it's going to end up. Not a lot of "well-aimed shots" here.

So yes, it's the definition of a massacre.

Spare me the stupidity of the Guardsmen being scared. If they didn't have the training to figure out if they were truly under fire or not, they shouldn't have been there. And they had weapons and rounds.

I can't count how many time my guys and I heard gunfire, but obviously didn't observe any rounds kicking up dirt or hear the cracking of a round displacing air as it flew over your head.

We held our fire. It wasn't even a hard choice.

These guys were woefully unprepared for this situation. That's why it turned into a clusterfuck and a massacre.
 
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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top