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.
Shot in the back while responding to a bank robbery perpetrated by anti-war activists who were trying to fund an armed uprising. He left behind 9 children.
It also took the draft. Without the draft, there probably would not have been such opposition to the war. This is demonstrated by recent and current wars that have not involved drafting people into service. College campuses around the nation have been very apathetic for the past ten years, despite two wars.
Heroes?! LOL!!!!! Get a freakin grip! chilegirl hates all things American.
BTW I think what happened at Kent State was terrible and there should have been prosecutions.
In other words, he was responding to something engineered by a small, radical group, which most anti-war protesters were not. He wasn't responding to a large gathering, as at Kent State. One policeman is one too many, and four students is heinous. There certainly should have been prosecutions of the ONG.
Your friend needs to grow up and grow a pair. It was 41 years ago.
I know more than one person that was there. They have zero problems with it anymore.
If anything Kent State taught us that government should not have as much power as they do. But dopey arse liberals will never figure that one out.
And it is quite often live ammunition is used against Americans. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian Gonzalaz, that guy in Orlando that was shot dead on an airplane.
We're fortunate in the U.S. in that our government kills less of her citizens than most other governments do. Another reason why we should demand small(er) government.
And the Viet Nam vets with PTSD should "grow a pair" and just get over it? Did any of your friends who were there go to administer first aid and find that someone was dying, then end up covered in blood? I highly doubt it. And the point flew right over your head...that the government had too much power was part of the reason people protested....guess dopey ass Republicans aren't bright enough to grasp that. Plus, none of the situations that you mentioned have anything to do with millions of Americans demanding an end to the violence both at home and abroad; each is an isolated instance.
Great link! I particularly like "wingnut breakfast".
It really was peace, love and social justice.
We scared the PTB, they had to stop it, murder was the only way they saw to end it.
In one of the links I posted earlier, Gov Rhodes called for murder to save his way of life. We didn't want his way of life.
ANYTHING done in those days -- or today -- no matter how violent -- or hateful -- to weaken the United States -- would be ok with you, wouldn't it, cheilgal? You'd defend the scum of the earth if it ate at the foundation of a system and nation you despise with a pathological hatred.
There is a great book -- and lots of columns -- written by a certain David Horowitz. The title of the book is "The Destructive Generation".
Doesn't matter if it's left or right! I'm not into the whole left vs right thing, because I think both extremes can be nut jobs! Protesting is one thing! I get that! People ABSOLUTELY have a right to have their voices heard! That right ENDS when rioting, and a mob mentality develops! You start trashing someone's property, and putting others in danger, you are by no means an innocent protester!
I agree. People have absolutely no right to be violent, regardless of their message.
During 1968 we saw how both the right and left protest. The right protests involved marches with Dr. King, and they were 100% peaceful, dispite the violence perpetrated against them by bigotted leftists. The left protests involved blowing up buildings, started riots, destroying property, and were not even remotely peaceful.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects our right to peacefully protest. It does not protect anyone who uses violence.
I think it was the live ammunition that got people killed in Kent, Ohio that day.
Well, what were those guys in the Ohio National Guard up against? Water balloons and spit-balls?
! have followed this thread, but don't really know enough about all the details of the Kent State incident to really comment in detail. It sounds like that yeah, the National Guardsmen made some serious mistakes and there was a decided lack of leadership. But then again, I wasn't there. On the same topic, I can't believe that some on this thread are making it out like a rioting mob was nothing more than a bunch of kids having harmless fun.
In any event, a well aimed and hard thrown heavy rock can cause serious bodily injury if not death. I don't know what is the general rule which governs the use of deadly force by the National Guard, but I do know that in my home state of Texas, deadly force is justified against an assailant if the attacker is using unlawful deadly force...which is in turn defined as force capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Continuing, serious bodily injury is described as "injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."
Well, what were those guys in the Ohio National Guard up against? Water balloons and spit-balls?
! have followed this thread, but don't really know enough about all the details of the Kent State incident to really comment in detail. It sounds like that yeah, the National Guardsmen made some serious mistakes and there was a decided lack of leadership. But then again, I wasn't there. On the same topic, I can't believe that some on this thread are making it out like a rioting mob was nothing more than a bunch of kids having harmless fun.
In any event, a well aimed and hard thrown heavy rock can cause serious bodily injury if not death. I don't know what is the general rule which governs the use of deadly force by the National Guard, but I do know that in my home state of Texas, deadly force is justified against an assailant if the attacker is using unlawful deadly force...which is in turn defined as force capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Continuing, serious bodily injury is described as "injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."
Just saying...
If you get a chance, read an objective source about the event. There really was nothing justifiable about it. Not one of America's Finest Moments.
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.
