Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Forty two years ago, yesterday, the Ohio National Guard opened fire on the campus of Kent State University and killed four students.
As it turned out, several of the students were in no way even involved in anti-Vietnam protests occurring on the campus. They were simply walking to class.
How did this happen? What was the justification (or lack thereof) for soldiers carrying loaded guns on a college campus, let alone firing those weapons? Assuming there was an issue with "crowd control" was there no method short of firing a loaded gun to control that crowd?
This tragedy was investigated. What were the facts? Who is responsible for the carnage that occurred. Why was no one ever sent to jail?
To this day, I have a lot more questions about this event than I have answers.
Well, for one thing (if you had taken the trouble to actually read a basic account of this awful tragedy) the National Guardsmen had been called in because the peaceful radical student protestors had burned the Kent State ROTC building down a day or so before.
Whoever issued live ammo to these Guardsmen was a moron.
Alright guys, maybe I know more about this than I let on. What I was trying to do was stimulate a discussion. There is no need to be insulting.
I feel your pain, the sniping isn't necessary.
For me it is just another bitter memory, and I don't know what more can be said other than the fact that justice was never mete out as a result of this killing.
For me it is just another bitter memory, and I don't know what more can be said other than the fact that justice was never mete out as a result of this killing.
Yes, it was. Those Guardsmen should never have been prosecuted. It was violent situation brought on by the demonstrators (I hesitate to say "students" because a good many of them were not) and the Guardsmen were frightened, as anyone would be. When you mix poorly trained, ill-equipped National Guardsmen and violent protest together, something tragic is going to happen and that's just the way it is. Nobody was at "fault."
Yes, it was. Those Guardsmen should never have been prosecuted. It was violent situation brought on by the demonstrators (I hesitate to say "students" because a good many of them were not) and the Guardsmen were frightened, as anyone would be. When you mix poorly trained, ill-equipped National Guardsmen and violent protest together, something tragic is going to happen and that's just the way it is. Nobody was at "fault."
Can you cite any evidence that "a good many" of the demonstrators were not students? Thirteen people were shot and all were students. The only non-student on the scene who I have ever heard mentioned is Mary Ann Vecchio, a fourteen-year-old runaway at the time.
The statement that, "Those Guardsmen should never have been prosecuted," is absurd. How does anyone justify firing 67 shots and hitting 13 unarmed people who are 71 to 750 feet away? How was it violent enough to justify this level of "self-defense?"
Compare this to the Boston Massacre where two British soldiers wer found guilty of manslaughter. The British soldiers did have grounds for self defense because of their proximity to the demonstrators.
I could never shoot fellow Americans unless they were firing upon me. Then as a young fellow or now a grown man. Fixed Bayonet alone would frightened most people and cause the crowd to retract upon itself. Then there is the CS.
Of course, I type that from air conditioned comfort. I could see my resolve slipping if I were fatigued, stressed and adrenalin were working on me. I would be recalling how armed men have been disarmed and butchered by crazed crowds of their own countrymen. Once someone in the ranks shoots I could see myself squeezing away as well. Survival instinct.
A National Guard rifleman is presumably not trained to use less than lethal force.
Last edited by Felix C; 05-05-2012 at 12:30 PM..
Reason: spelling edit
I could never shoot fellow Americans unless they were firing upon me. Then as a young fellow or now a grown man. Fixed Bayonet alone would frightened most people and cause the crowd to retract upon itself. Then there is the CS.
Of course, I type that from airconditioned comfort. I could see my resolve slipping if I were fatigued, stressed and adrenalin where working on me. I would be recalling how armed men have been disarmed and butchered by crazed crowds of their own countrymen. Once someone in the ranks shoots I could see myself squeezing away as well. Survival instinct.
A National Guard rifleman is presumably not trained to use less than lethal force.
No, National Guard training includes riot control as that's one of their primary state functions.
However, remember that the NG of today was NOT the NG back then. In those days, the National Guard was the bastid step-child of the Army. They got next to nothing in terms of training funds, weapons and equipment. For instance, look at the photos of Kent State. See the rifle's they were carrying? Those are M-1 Garand's, which had not been the standard issue rifle for the Army since 1957. It had been replaced by the M-14 which had, in turn, been replaced by the M-16, yet the Guard was still using those twice obsolete M-1's.
Back then, about the only training National Guardsmen got was during their required basic training, which they took right alongside their Regular Army counterparts. They typically got ONE DAY of extra training in crowd control and NG mission specific things and that was it. After returning to home station, they typically got little to no additional or refresher training simply because the funds and facilities were not available. Drill periods were usually spent in classes or just goofing off.
And, don't forget that the Guard back then was a haven for guys seeking to avoid duty in Vietnam. Consequently, most of its members were just putting in their six year obligation and had little motivation to be "good soldiers." During that time, for instance, drinking was a primary occupation during Annual Training because most of them simply did not care. They weren't there to serve their country, but to avoid the war. That's not to say ALL of them were shirkers. They weren't. The Guard had a pretty good, solid cadre of NCO's and some of the avoiders found they liked the Army atmosphere and became career soldiers. However, they didn't constitute a majority at that time. Moreover, their officer corps was (and is) riddled with political officers who rose through the ranks by their connections to state politicians rather than skill.
I said all that to say this: While the Guard was the only military resource the Governor of Ohio had to call on without Federal help, it was NOT a professional military organization by any means and to expect them to perform professionally was asking more of it than it could deliver at the time. The troops were poorly trained, poorly led and poorly equipped for such an environment. They were tossed into a situation they were not prepared for and I believe that's why you got what you got there.
Consequently, I don't think it's fair to hold the soldiers themselves responsible because they did not create the situation as they found it and had no control over how well they had been prepared. They were little more than average Joe's off the street with a minimum of training who were handed a loaded rifle and pushed out front.
Can you cite any evidence that "a good many" of the demonstrators were not students? Thirteen people were shot and all were students. The only non-student on the scene who I have ever heard mentioned is Mary Ann Vecchio, a fourteen-year-old runaway at the time.
The statement that, "Those Guardsmen should never have been prosecuted," is absurd. How does anyone justify firing 67 shots and hitting 13 unarmed people who are 71 to 750 feet away? How was it violent enough to justify this level of "self-defense?"
Compare this to the Boston Massacre where two British soldiers wer found guilty of manslaughter. The British soldiers did have grounds for self defense because of their proximity to the demonstrators.
The day before, a companion riot had ignited in downtown Kent and the rioters included bikers, local bums and out of towners, as well as students. On campus, there isn't a doubt in my mind that professional agitators were in the crowd because they were in EVERY campus demonstration back then. There was a whole social subset of revolutionary agitators whose mission it was to create confrontations at every opportunity. It was just a factor of those times when "revolution" was in the air and some violent extremists were actually trying to start that revolution.
As a for instance, look at the old films of the demonstration at the Pentagon which turned violent in that time frame. While crowd at the front is peacefully exchanging words with armed soldiers guarding the steps, a group of helmet-clad agitators suddenly appear in the rear, shoving people forward. That set off a reactive forward movement which pushed the front ranks of demonstrators into the soldiers who, naturally, reacted thinking they were being attacked. It was a deliberately planned and executed movement to create violence and it was not uncommon at all during demonstrations all over the country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
