As for Kent State, it was probably a bad idea to allow weapons to be loaded, except maybe for the non-coms. If you're not handling it with smoke and bayonets, then obviously you don't have enough personnel on hand for riot work.
Or maybe it was a mistake to throw rocks and bottles at the National Guard in the first place.
From what I understand from most of the reports, they were not loaded until the crowd started to throw rocks at them.
Sorry, as I said I have very little pity for those that throw deadly weapons at armed law enforcement or military personnel. I see it largely as self-inflicted suicide to be honest. Or Darwinism in action. I am all for legal peaceful protest. But when that turns into an ongoing month long riot with weapons thrown at those trying to put an end to it, my "Give a frack" largely goes away.
And remember, I have even mentioned a similar incident two centuries earlier. Where none other than John Adams defended the soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre. And got the senior one acquitted, and the ones convicted off with only branding on the thumb. The jury all agreed that the incident had been instigated by the mob, and they felt a legitimate fear for their lives as they were being pelted with rocks. As much of a Patriot as John Adams was, he could not sit back and let them be tried without adequate defense.
I have performed a great many military security duties over the years. And never once did I have a weapon and no ammunition. And before the Guard was called out at Kent State (and earlier in the day) they had tried using tear gas, with no effect. They were trying to disperse the crowd with bayonets when the crowd started throwing rocks at them. In that incident, around 500 students were throwing rocks at 77 Guardsmen (our of just under 200 that responded to the governor's call). With over 2,000 rioters on that day, I am not sure what would be "enough". 3,000 Guardsmen? 4,000?
Do the governor and Mayor just do nothing until they can get thousands of Guardsmen?
