Talk:Kent State shootings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Politics Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Anti-war, a collective approach to organizing and unifying articles related to the anti-war movement. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Quadell has pledged a bounty of $15 in donation to the Wikimedia Foundation contingent on Kent State shootings's improvement to featured status. Please check out the Wikipedia Bounty Board for more information on how you can help collect for Wikipedia!

This article is part of WikiProject Ohio, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ohio. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Old an inactive discussion can be found at /archive.

Contents 1 Kent State in the "School Shootings" and "State Terrorism" categories 2 Citation needed for "This should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy." / Nixon reaction may be misleading 3 Media-Plays-Cellophane Xerox 4 Kent Legal Defense Fund 5 Article quality is deteriorating 6 Bikers 7 NPOV / Alternative Neutral Source 8 Two hundred years? 9 References are in a sad state 10 Image filename change 11 Murders? 11.1 Arbitrary section break 11.2 Arbitrary section break 2 12 NPOV Tag 13 Court Order? 14 Scranton Commission 15 Why Huston Plan info is not tangential 16 On Nixon tapes, talk, and focus around Kent State shootings 16.1 "go beat up on these demonstrators" 16.2 "these bums" 16.3 "invites tragedy" 16.4 On Nixon's focus 17 Terry Norman

[edit] Kent State in the "School Shootings" and "State Terrorism" categories

Contrary to the claim in your edit summary, I did back up each edit with evidence and quotes from the actual WP articles, such as the very first paragraph of the State terrorism article. You don't appear to have read any of them all the way through. I've explained the category as well. Over and above this, please give me a reason why I should not report you at this point for 3RR. Best, Badagnani 09:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No sir, you have not. It was NOT an incident of state terrorism, it was a RIOT where the National Guard was called to restore order and opened fire because they claimed they were in fear for their lives.

Give YOU a reason? Sorry if I don't bow down before you, but maybe a good reason is that you violated it easily yourself, on top of the personal insults. Equinox137 09:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First, please do give me the four instances of reverts that I have performed in a 24-hour period. Second, you really have not read the articles straight through. If you had, you would have read the following:

The President's Commission on Campus Unrest avoided the question of why the shootings happened, but harshly criticized both the protesters and the Guardsmen, concluding that "the indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."

On June 13, 1970, President Nixon established the President's Commission on Campus Unrest which he charged to study the dissent, disorder, and violence breaking out on college and university campuses across the nation.[10] The Commission's establishment was a consequence of the fatal violence at Kent State and Jackson State. The Commission issued its findings in a September 1970 report that concluded that the Ohio National Guard shootings on May 4, 1970 were unjustified. The report said:

"Even if the guardsmen faced danger, it was not a danger that called for lethal force. The 61 shots by 28 guardsmen certainly cannot be justified. Apparently, no order to fire was given, and there was inadequate fire control discipline on Blanket Hill. The Kent State tragedy must mark the last time that, as a matter of course, loaded rifles are issued to guardsmen confronting student demonstrators."

No matter how you may wish things to have transpired that day, the fact is that many of the Guard members, whether or not they claimed self-defense, were aiming at particular students and firing repeatedly at them, with two of the students not even having participated in the protests. Even Nixon's commission found the self-defense claim to have been spurious. Badagnani 09:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You presume a lot, I did read it. The fact that a presidential commission that was 1,000 miles away from the scene at the time of the incident says it's so, doens't make it so. Everybody's good at armchair quarterbacking and 20/20 hindsight. Furthermore, where's the backing for your statement that the soldiers "were aiming at particular students and firing repeatedly at them"? Even the all-mighty commission never said that. Do you have a problem with soldiers and cops, Badagnani? Or maybe the Ohio National Guard? Does the fact that you're from Kent cloud your judgement on this issue? Either way, the fact remains about the commission that THEY WEREN'T THERE.

I'm still waiting to hear why this belongs in either the school shooting or state terrorism categories. All the incidents in the school shooting category have to do with a mentally instable shooter attacking students.

State terrorism is defined by wikipedia itself as "controversial term, which means violence against civilians perpetrated by a national government or proxy state. Whether a particular act is described as "terrorism" may depend on whether the International community considers the action justified or necessary, or whether the described act is carried out as part of an armed conflict." Since the National Guard was called in response to the riots and not deliberately terrorizing any protestor or studend by any account, how does this qualify as "state terrorism." Equinox137 09:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Please give me the four instances of reverts that I have performed in a 24-hour period.

2) (Already explained): It's state terrorism by definition from that article's first paragraph, with the additional factor that the violence took place by the firing into an unarmed crowd with semiautomatic weapons. I don't necessarily agree or agree with the concept of "state terrorism" and that article makes it clear that the term itself is controversial.

3) (Already explained): for whatever reason, the School massacres category was deleted a few days ago, leaving only School shootings. It isn't exactly the same as Columbine but does fit the category and is the only remaining category into which it will fit. Badagnani 10:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than report, I'd very much rather you edit in a thoughtful manner, first reading the articles, then considering how your recent (obviously strongly felt) edits fit with the already-soureced material there. Badagnani 10:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem with police or soldiers; do you have one? It's fairly well accepted that Alan Canfora, who was "in the face" of the Guard earlier in the day, was shot in the hand (he was earlier waving a black flag; this can be seen in a lot of the photos). He then ducked behind a tree and heard bullets hit the tree just after. Some Guard members selected targets (i.e. unarmed students), as they are trained to do, and fired at them, while others stated that they shot in the air or into the ground. Two of the wounded students, Joseph Lewis (who was giving the finger to the Guard just before being shot) and James Russell, were each shot twice and other survivors of the shootings report multiple rounds being fired directly at them, and seeing gun barrels pointed at them. You may wish the Guard to have been in a life-or-death situation as many people still do but the facts are not with you. The students had largely dispersed and most were far away in a distant parking lot when hit. You should visit the site of the shootings someday and you'll be quite surprised at the great distance. Badagnani 10:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

How could I possibly have a problem with police or soldiers when I'm defending them? Furthermore, since when does Canfora become an authoritative source? He is giving one version of the events that happened. Of course, the students were hit more than once with multiple rounds fired at them. So was Amadou Diallo, so what? All these other allegations of soldiers deliberately targeting students sounds suspiciously as though it came from the students/rioters themselves. You may wish for the students to be innocent in this incident, but the facts are not with you either, sir. Furthermore, neither you, nor a commission of beaucrats can determine whether or not an officer (or soldier, in this case) had a reasonable fear for his/her life. Did the guardsmen know what kind of weapons the students had with them (aside from the rocks they were already using?) - no. Also, 75 feet is NOT a great distance, nor is 265 feet when weapons are involved. If you've fired on a range, you'll know what I mean. Equinox137 10:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Are you really claiming that some of the Guardsmen did not select targets (i.e. students), then fire upon them, and are you also claiming that many of the unarmed students were not very distant from the Guard? You imply (no, in fact you state) that the students were not innocent, but in fact as I have mentioned no fewer than two times already, two of the four slain students were entirely uninvolved in the protest, none had firearms, and the protest had largely died down and dispersed, with most in a distant parking lot. Again, you are showing that you are not well informed on this subject, but it's never too late. Although you wish something to be true (or not true, in this case), in all these cases you are incorrect. Badagnani 11:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• • If the shooters are going to fire into a crowd, they are obviously going to have a select the target(s) they perceive is the greatest threat (if the shooter has a conscience), so obviously they selected targets. I don't believe I ever made the claim that they didn't select targets. I know that 2 of the students, out of the 13 total hit, were not involved; I know that no firearms were found on any of the students/protestors (however there is no documentation anywhere of anyone being searched, either); and I know that (conflicting reports state, according to may4archive.org) the protests had died down; and I know that the targets were located in a "distant" parking lot. I'm not debating any of that. However, the distance involved is not great. However, the M1 is a long range weapon designed for combat in Europe in the event of a Soviet invasion of the west, so the largest distance involved here is peanuts compared to what an M1 is truly capable of, which is a maximum effective range of 550 meters/600 yards and a maximum total range of up to 2 miles.
  • Put yourself into their position. You're wearing an M-71 gas mask, which is extremely uncomfortable, claustrophobic, retains heat and sweat, and most importantly, obscures your vision. (Fortunately, the M-71 was replaced by the M-80 gas mask in the mid 1990s, which is more comfortable and easier to maintain). The rioters have already set fire to one building. There were rumors of a sniper engaging your fellow soldiers. You're getting pelted with rocks, debris, and your own tear gas canisters. Another soldier has already been injured. You're ordered to disperse a gathering and end of surrounded, or at least you have the perception of it. Some students may be armed (keep in mind, you have to go into a situation such as that with that presumption). You see what may be a weapon carried by a student/protest in the "distant" parking lot. Even today, that's all probable cause you need to engage the target and the amount of rounds expended makes no difference, whatever it takes until the target is down. Equinox137 09:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

From the recent documentary "The Day the War Came Home":

FIRST GUARDSMAN: I had a person targeted. I pulled the slack out of the trigger –

SECOND GUARDSMAN: I assumed that we were firing warning shots, and I fired my weapon in the air.

JOHN CLEARY: I jumped on the ground, praying I wouldn't get hit.

FIRST GUARDSMAN: Hundreds of people were falling on the ground. And I believe that many of them were being hit.

ALAN CANFORA: There was one tree near me, which was right in the line of fire, and as I got behind the tree at the last second before my arm reached the safety of the tree, that’s when I was hit.

JOHN CLEARY: The next thing I know, I got hit just below the shoulder blade in the back on the left side.

FIRST GUARDSMAN: That person that I had targeted was standing in front of me yelling, “Shoot me, mother [bleep], shoot me!”

SECOND GUARDSMAN: Everybody else is running away, and there's this one male coming towards us. His right hand was in the upward position giving an obscene gesture, and his left hand was somewhat behind his back.

FIRST GUARDSMAN: My mind was racing. My mind was telling me that this is wrong, that this is not right.

JOE LEWIS: I was giving an obscene gesture for the first time that day, but I wasn't screaming, and I wasn't moving.

FIRST GUARDSMAN: This is not right. This is not right. This is not right.

SECOND GUARDSMAN: At that point, I felt that I was in jeopardy, and I fired on the individual, and he dropped.

JOE LEWIS: And I believe someone said that they heard me say, “Oh, my god, they shot me.”

SECOND GUARDSMAN: Next thing that I remember was there was an order from the rear of where we were, someone yelling, “Cease-fire!” which stopped immediately. Badagnani 11:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

More quotes:

"This student was Joseph Lewis. Guardsman Lawrence Shafer admitted that he aimed at him and shot him because Lewis was giving him the finger."

"Shafer also admitted bayonetting a disabled Vietnam vet sitting in a car the evening before, because the man was bad-mouthing him. Guardsman James Pierce wrote in his after-action report that the students were 'savage animals'. J. Edgar Hoover wrote in a memo to his top assistants six days later that the students 'got what they deserved'." Badagnani 11:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I have to ask about this documentary. I'll admit I've never heard of it until it was mentioned here, however I researched it and the only place I could find references to it is on left-wing websites. That leads me to believe it's a Fahrenheit 9/11-style "documentary." If that's the case, I would think everything contained in the program has a suspectable bias, wouldn't you say? Given that and the media's proclivity to sensationalize an incident, I'm not willing to judge the actions of an officer (or a soldier acting in the capacity of a law enforcement officer) based on either a likely politically biased documentary or a media account. I wasn't there (and correct me if I'm wrong, you weren't either) and I did not see what prompted the first soldier to open fire, whom was not identified in this article, to do so. Did he spot a possible weapon among the protestors? We don't know what the first shooter saw. The very fact that the DA did not appeal the court's decision to dismiss the charges against the soldiers leads me to believe that there's more to the story (as there always is) than any "documentary" or media account has presented.

Secondly, we already know that two of the students killed were not involved in the protests - no one disputes that. You're correct, I said that the students were not innocent in this incident. There was no reason it should have escalated to the point where local police couldn't handle the situation and military forces had to be callled in to restore order.

Third, I'm not arguing that these students deserved to be shot. Was it excessive use of force? Yes. Did the Ohio NG fuck up? Absolutely - no argument here. However, this incident began with and was escalated by the protestors. It's not mentioned, but I'll bet the ones that were identified (that weren't shot) were prosecuted.

Either way, this incident does not belong categorized as either 1) a school shooting - which Wikipedia has generally categorized as incident involving a mentally unstable shooter trespassing into school grounds and opening fire on students or faculty due to personal issues, which the soldiers were not OR, 2) state terrorism - a politically loaded and difficult to define term which vaguely means the state proactively terrorizing it's citizens by summary executions, real torture, the knock in the middle of the night, extermination camps etc. that occured in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cambodia, et al. If you're to refer to this incident as "state terrorism", then any incident involving excessive use of force on a citizen by a law enforcement officer (or a soldier acting in a law enforcement capacity) would qualify as "state terrorism" - which ultimately dilutes the term. Equinox137 05:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, the cited film is not a "left wing" or "conspiracy" film by any stretch of the imagination. It is very good and* shows various viewpoints, including two Guardsmen who participated in the events and who have different views from one another. Watch it and decide for yourself what you think about it. Badagnani 05:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get it? Equinox137 05:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I checked it out from the Kent State library. But I think it comes with this book; maybe a local library in your area has it? Badagnani 06:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• I recommend reading this article, which I've just found; it has some important information about the Guard's actions. It's long but worth the slog. Badagnani 05:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at it in a bit. By the way, I thought the 'school massacre' cat had been cleared out? It looks like this article is the only one in the cat. Equinox137 06:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I read the article - very interesting, indeed. Even it doesn't absolve the protestors of any guilt, though. In fact, it makes them look like asshats for making "demands" of the authorities as though they were in a position to do so (i.e. that arrestees be released/given amnesty and the NG be withdrawn from campus). It outlines that there were so many different versions of the story, both on the part of the soliders and the students that no one could figure out what was heads or tails of what had actually happened. In fact, it points out Section 2923.5, Ohio Revised Code which provides that "any law enforcement officer or member of the Militia (i.e. the Ohio NG) is guiltless for killing, maiming or injuring a rioter as a consequence of the use of such force as is necessary and proper to suppress the riot or disperse or apprehend rioters," which seems to me to give the soldiers' actions legal backing. The law was on their side. This was probably why the court dismissed the indictments outright when a prosecution was attempted. Although the killing of the students, in particular the two that were not involved with the protestors is tragic, there were in the middle of a volitile situation.

What's also interesting is that the grand jury report placed some responsibility/blame on the "23 concerned faculty of Kent State University" for distributing a document on May 3, 1970 which exacebated the situation. I think that needs a mention here too.

Finally, when firing a rifle, 250 yards is nothing. Believe me. Any decent shooter can hit a target at center mass at 350 meters with either an M-16A2 or an M-4. If those soliders were guilty of anything, it was of shitty marksmanship. Equinox137 08:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• The article should be in some category, and in thinking about it I agree that the use of "school" is confusing because one thinks of primary/secondary schools rather than universities (which aren't called schools at all, for example, in the UK or Australia). So perhaps a new category is needed for Kent State and Orangeburg. Badagnani 06:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• • And don't forget the Jackson State killings. (Everybody forgets that one.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 06:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • I agree these three events need to be in a "University Shootings" category. I personally don't know how to create one though, so I'll have to leave it to someone else. Equinox137 07:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• A couple of thoughts in regard to the above: it's agreed that there were some positive outcomes to the shootings: fixed bayonets (which were indeed used that weekend) were done away with, as was, I believe, the use of live ammunition in such situations. (Many of the students apparently didn't believe the rifles could really have been loaded until the last moment.) Also, Canfora and probably other students who were shot were angry that none of the Guardsmen were punished for the killings (though some did, in testimony, state that they did shoot at students), but angrier that Nixon and the (at the time up for re-election) Governor Rhodes had let the situation escalate to the point it did. So the application of "state terrorism," in their minds, would carry the implication that the calling out of the Guard in the first place was partly to score political points. ROTC buildings had apparently earlier been burned on other campuses without similar shootings. Just some thoughts. Badagnani 06:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Fixed bayonets are not longer used, however the military is issued live ammunition when assistance is requested by civil authorities (ref. 1992 LA Riots, JTF-6 Border Patrol Operations, and Hurricane Katrina). I can see where the application of "state terrorism" would be present in Canfora's mind as well as others, but we have to consider two things: 1) that's Canfora's (and the protestors') POV, 2) the term "state terrorism" was not in use in 1970, unless I'm mistaken. That said, I don't think anyone can argue that the politicians of the time escalated the situation. Equinox137 07:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed for "This should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy." / Nixon reaction may be misleading

According to Stanley Karnow, the statement is attributed to Ron Ziegler, Nixon's press secretary, not the president:

"The administration initially reacted to this event [the shootings] with wanton insensitivity. Nixon's press secretary, Ron Ziegler, whose statements were carefully programmed, referred to the deaths as reminder that "when dissent turns to violence, it invites tradegy." Vietnam: A History, p.612

Furthermore, the reaction of Nixon to the shootings portrayed by Karnow is at odds with what is currently drafted in the article. Karnow continues:

"One night, accompanied by his valet, he drove to the Lincoln Memorial, where young dissidents were conducting a nocturnal vigil. He treated them to a clumsy and condescending monologue, which he made public in an awkward attempt to display his benevolence. But not long afterward, when several senators nearly succeeded in restricting his military activities in Cambodia, he decided to stop 'screwing around' with his congressional adversaries and other foes. He ordered the formation of a covert team headed by Tom Huston, a former army intelligence specialist, to improve surveillance of domestic critics." Vietnam: A History, p.612

--Dkwong323 07:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As no one defended the draft, the subject text was replaced to describe the Nixon White House's reaction to the shootings as "callous". References to source material from Stanley Karnow and Henry Kissinger are identified in the References section. --Dkwong323 01:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media-Plays-Cellophane Xerox

In 1993 the play Cellophane Xerox, written by Frederick Gaines and directed by Rick Davis, premiered at the Thearter of the First Amendment at George Mason University. If memory serves, the play centered on the conflict between a father and a son and to my mind captured a snese of the generational conflict that was sharp and very disturbing in Kent in May 1970 and thereafter. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tdietzvt (talk • contribs).

[edit] Kent Legal Defense Fund

Immediately after the shootings, a medical defense fund was started to help defer costs of medical expenses for those who were wounded. I have the recollection that it was quite successful given the broad public sympathy aroused by what had happened.

In September 1970, imeediately after the Grand Jury indictments were issues, Kerry Blech, Don Dykes and Tom Dietz incorporated the Kent Legal Defense Fund to offer assistance to the Kent 25. Attorneys had advised not to include anyone who was indicted among the officers and board, so the KLDF couldn't be created until it was known who would be indicted. The funds to incorporate were raised by soliciting contributions at the Student Union. The incorporation was done in Akron because it wasn't clear what attorneys in Kent or Ravenna would take on the task. Funds were raised by benefits concerts, sales of buttons and posters, donations at speeches and by a direct mail campaign. The funds were used to provide a minimal retainer to insure each of the Kent 25 had an attorney and to support the appeals process through the federal courts, which was led by William Kunstler and the Center for Constitutional Rights, among others. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tdietzvt (talk • contribs).

[edit] Article quality is deteriorating

Everyone should be distressed that the quality of this article is deteriorating. Numerous short out-of-context edits (many with axes to grind) have turned an improving good quality article into muck full of non sequiturs and generalizations that are not directly tied to Kent. Maybe some of the early contributors can save this work, but it needs help from good assertive writers and editors. Help! Readers of this article need to know what was going on in Kent! Some sore points follow.

Lead paragraphs:

There were significant national consequences to the shootings; hundreds of universities, colleges, high schools, and even elementary schools closed throughout the United States due to a student strike of eight million students, and the event further divided the country along political lines.

This point was clearly illustrated when President Richard M. Nixon attempted to justify the shootings :with the statement, "This should serve as a grave reminder that when dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy.

>> OK -- Were there significant national consequences other then the closing of educational institutions? If not, just write about the educational institutions. What point does Nixon's statement clearly illustrate? As of this date, there isn't any point -- fix it or get rid of it. Shouldn't the major Presidential Commission findings be noted in the lead?

Lead up to the shooting:

This section is inaccurate (and inappropriate) because it says nothing about what was specifically going on in and around Kent, Ohio with the various protestors, demonstrators, police, university officials, state officials, etc. before May 1. For demonstrators, the obvious trigger for the demonstrations is entirely omitted -- the start of the U.S. bombing of Cambodia. Who were these demonstrators, and why were they planning protests? Was there riff-raff (e.g. bikers) who exploited tensions between protestors and public officials? How were the state and local public officials of the day prepared to deal with demonstrators and protestors -- whether violent or non-violent?

I made a minor change to this section heading calling it "historical background", because that's clearly what it is. There's nothing in that section specific to the Kent State events. SparhawkWiki 16:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

May 1:

Did the distriuptions caused by intoxicated bikers have anything to do with demonstrators or demonstrations earlier that day?

May 2:

This applies to the whole article, but it is particularly apparent here. Rather than writing sentences might imply connections between events, it is better to just list the events and explain the connections that can be explained. Otherwise, what is written can confuse and mislead. For example:

When the National Guard arrived in town that evening, a large demonstration was under way and the campus Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) building was burning.';

This is a simple sentence that gives facts about three different things, but it invites confusion. Were these three things directly related to one another or not? Did the burning have anything to do with the National Guard? (If not, let's develop these ideas separately. If so, there is explaining to do.) Arson is implied -- is everyone sure it was arson? How do we know that there were more than one arsonist? Did anyone claim responsibility?

What was the rationale for the declaration of a state of emergency? Was the rationale appropriate given the events of the time? (The article implies that Rhodes believed there were revolutionaries at work -- please alaborate). How is it known that it was "protestors" who cheered the burning of the ROTC building that night (did anyone ask them who they were are why they were there)? What were these protestors protesting? Was the burning an act of violence as the Nixon Administration claimed? Were there alot of noisy bystanders watching the building burn?

May 3:

The use of the term "protestors" is overly broad. Students and well as other people were protesting -- again protestors had different causes.

I'm worn-out. I hope I got the points across. --Dkwong323 05:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot to address. Alan Canfora and others maintain that the thing about the bikers never happened, and that the early street protests and window smashing was done largely if not completely by students outraged about the bombing of Cambodia. I think the article makes this fairly clear. If Canfora is correct, the biker reference, wherever it came from, should be omitted. I don't agree that the article is as bad as you claim (in reference to the sections you mention). Regarding the burning of the building, it is indeed a mystery who started it, how, and when. The students had tried and given up earlier in the evening. I believe Nixon's statement, seeming to blame the victims, is significant, as is the student strike triggered by the Kent State killings. Regarding the motivation for and reaction to the burning of the ROTC building, it was a target as ROTC buildings were across the country at that time, as a symbol of militarism. Do you question that the cheering occurred? I think it's mentioned in eyewitness accounts. Hope this helps to answer things. (Does it?) Badagnani 06:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the well organized activities of student anti-war groups on campus (primarily SDS) before May 1 is deserving of discussion, to give the May 1-4 protests context. Badagnani 06:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I apparently have failed to get my points across -- my questions are not for me -- they're for everybody. I'm glad you feel better about your explanations here in the discussion section. This is only the discussion section. But what about the article that must stand on its own merits alone for all those wonderful people out there in the dark? So your only suggestion is to omit the biker reference, no? Anyone disagree? --Dkwong323 04:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about "you feel better about your explanations"? I did not write those sections of the article. And I clearly mentioned adding more about SDS and its earlier role on campus. If you would be more specific about new proposed additions we can evaluate those but regarding the burning of the ROTC building, for example (the second, actual burning), it's just a mystery, to everyone. There's just no way around that. Badagnani 10:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bikers

Alan Canfora, who was there, has maintained on his website that the Wikipedia is bad because it mentions that bikers were doing a lot of the disruption and vandalism on the evening of May 1. However, he claims that this is inaccurate, although it appeared in at least one book and was repeated by others--he claims that the students, angry about the escalation of the war into Cambodia, were the ones who unleashed the vandalism, no bikers. So the removal of the "bikers" info is probably a good edit. Badagnani 05:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the link: http://alancanfora.com/?q=node/1 Badagnani 06:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be careful about relying on Canfora for information. He seems to have a lot of conspiracy theories of his own, such as blaming the FBI for the ROTC building fire, immediately after admitting his was on scene was the students attempted for a second time to restart the fire that the fire department had already put out. He even compared the attempt to a "Three Stooges" routine. Today, Canfora is the chairman of the Barberton Democratic Party (since 1992) and states "The Iraq war, like Vietnam, is based upon lies. War criminal George Bush is just a Nixon clone but Bush is protected, until November, by a Republican Congress. History will truly repeat in 2007 when a Democratic Congress impeaches Bush or forces him to resign." This guy has had a political axe to grind for 40 years. Not exactly a source for reliable information. Equinox137 07:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV / Alternative Neutral Source

This article is clearly biased. From the beginning to the end, it uses weasel words ("attempted to justify"), unsourced statements, and other methods of subtly showing one viewpoint. Again, though, just my opinion... -Dbwiki148 01:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this is based on Alan Canfora's account of the incident. As has been pointed out previously, I don't know enough about KS to re-edit it, although if it's not obvious, I'm not very sympathetic to the students/protestors in this case. Equinox137 09:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the NPOV designation, but I disagree somewhat with the bias designation. The current WP article appears unbalanced because it is poorly organized, and ambiguous and incomplete in many areas. (See my earlier comments.) The treatment is not encyclopedic. I suggest that readers and researchers can get a very balanced, clear, straight-forward treatment of the events in "The May 4 Shootings at Kent State University: The Search for Historical Accuracy" by Jerry M. Lewis and Thomas R. Hensley. The article was published in THE OHIO COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIAL STUDIES REVIEW, VOL 34, NUMBER 1 (SUMMER, 1998) pp. 9-21. That article contains a hefty bibliography and evaluations of the many books and articles on the May 4 events. Of great value is an analysis of many of the important questions surrounding the May 4 events that still have not been answered with certainty. The contributors to WP articles can learn from Lewis and Hensley how to treat uncertainty in an objective, organized manner. Significantly, the article is posted on the Kent State University website and is listed as an external link in the current WP article [1]. ----Dkwong323 06:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two hundred years?

Should we add that the kent state shootings and the boston massacre occured almost two hundred years away from each other? It's a strange coincidence, seeing as the two events are very similar. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bubsty (talk • contribs).

That is interesting, but I'm not sure how that could be worked into the article. Badagnani 04:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe a trivia section could be added to the article with that statement in place. Equinox137 09:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections are starting to be looked down upon by WP, especially in serious articles such as this one. I've seen several people say (and I agree) that if a fact is important enough it will fit into the main body somewhere. If it can't then it's probably not important enough. 86.136.252.93 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no connection. None. Let's keep it to the facts, please.Knulclunk 04:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree - there is absolutely no connection. Tvoz 10:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References are in a sad state

This article, about an important American historical event of the past half-decade, is in disrepair, due solely to its lack of inline citations. I don't personally know where to start with this article, having never edited it, but this really needs some work. There are a ton of NPOV problems that would go away with proper citations. Please take a look at WP:CITE and see what you can do. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image filename change

There is also a discussion about changing the filename of the Filo photograh to Kent Sate shootings.jpg. Everyone is encouraged to offer insightful opinions on the image talk page
--Knulclunk 01:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Murders?

Ok, new hot button issue here. IMHO, if we are to de-POV this article, the reference to the deaths as "murders" need to be replaced. That is taking a very anti-military/guardsman POV. Let the reader decide if they're "murders" on their own. Equinox137 10:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And calling them just "shootings" isn't POV? As if it was accidental? COMe on. Tvoz | talk 04:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. A shooting is just that - a shooting. In this case, no it wasn't accidental - however they were never legally "murders" - they were deemed justified use of force after subsequent investigations and by the courts. The Simpson case is a different animal- Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered - however their killer wasn't convicted. The question of whether OJ was ever justified in using deadly force was never asked. In the KS case, it was asked and answered.

Incorrect, I'm afraid. The Scranton Commission investigated the deaths and their report said: ""Even if the guardsmen faced danger, it was not a danger that called for lethal force. The 61 shots by 28 guardsmen certainly cannot be justified."

Nope. The Scranton Commission was not a grand jury or an appeals court. Nor were they either soliders or police officers trained in use of force scenarios (all of them civilians, if I'm not mistaken). When I said it was asked and answered, I meant by the judge that dismissed the indictments. Equinox137 11:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Vice President Agnew acknowledged that it was "murder" but not in the first degree - see my referenced addition to the article, taken from a piece by respected journalist I.F. Stone.

Agnew was not the state District Attorney or US Attorney assigned to a potential prosecution. He was not qualified to make such a statement. Equinox137 10:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You are still talking about the legal outcome. I am talking about the definition of murder which, as you already agreed, is not contingent on the legal outcome. Tvoz | talk 10:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

By that definition, you could say that every officer-involved shooting was a "murder" too. Maybe at DailyKos or Democratic Underground it's ok, but not here - at least not according to the "policies". Equinox137 10:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Equinox, are you accusing me of being - gasp - a Democrat? Tvoz | talk 11:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why, never, TVoz....I could never accuse my favorite lefty of being as weak minded as a - gasp - Democrat.  :) Equinox137 06:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If the killings were not accidental, then they were deliberate. There are no other choices. You may think they were justified - I do not, nor did the President's Commission on Campus Unrest, known as the Scranton Commission. But they surely were deliberate. The guns did not go off accidentally. The bullets did not ricochet and unexpectedly kill them. The definition of murder is an act of deliberate killing. That the murderers got away with it is a sad fact of life - it happens every day. That does not change the facts for the victims, nor for the rest of the world as witnesses, nor for Wikipedia. Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered. Their killer or killers got away with it - as evidenced by the fact that no one has yet been convicted of the crime. It may have been OJ, it may not have been OJ - I don't care to discuss that. But no one, no one, thinks they were not murdered. It's not POV, it's obvious fact. And it's a matter of definition. "Justified use of force" may speak to whether the individuals could be held legally responsible - it may have kept them out of jail - but it does not change the fact of the deaths being deliberately caused, nor does it change what the President's Commission said. Saddam Hussein was murdered too - he was deliberately killed. We call it "executed", but it too is murder - state-sanctioned murder - which is what I would call Kent State as well. You may believe in capital punishment, or you may not. I don't care to discuss that either. It may have been justified, it may not. But he was murdered, and the students at Kent State were murdered, and Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered. I'm sorry if these comparisons make people uncomfortable, but the facts are what they are, and the semantics - and legal maneuvering - are beside the point. More below. Tvoz | talk 09:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The killings were in self defense and like it or not, the courts sided with that argument. The guardsmen that day were acting in a law enforcement capacity at the time. Was their training in riot control poor - absolutely. Either way, what the Scranton commission said has no effect on anything - that was a federal commission investigating a state matter. What it boils down to is that if they're not convicted of murder- IT'S NOT MURDER...PERIOD. Please refer to Ohio revised statute § 2903.02 for further information on this issue [2] Equinox137 10:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"if they're not convicted of murder- IT'S NOT MURDER...PERIOD. " So Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were not murdered, by your definition, except that earlier you said they were. The Guardsmen were not convicted of murder, I agree with that. The article doesn't say that Guardsman X murdered anyone. But the students were deliberately killed, and that is murder by definition. Legality vs reality. Courts are not always right, I am sure you know, and all that happened is that a case was not made to prosecute them and thus they were not proven guilty. That doesn't make them innocent - it makes them not proven guilty legally. You do see the difference, I hope. But, as I said, I am satisfied for now to have the Agnew quote from I.F. Stone, as it illustrates how people characterized the killings, and that's the point I think needs to be made more than changing instances of "shootings" to "murders" which, you will notice, I never did. By the way, your link did not work. Tvoz | talk 10:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, have you considered the possibility any of the surviving guardsmen could sue Wikipedia or even you in civil court for libel by insinuating that they committed murder? It's not unheard of. Equinox137 06:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No. I am not "insinuating" anything. I am quoting reliable sources and describing an historic event about which a great deal has been written. No specific names are used. But even so, I'm not going to reinstate the change that you reverted, because I don't want to edit war, and I think the referenced material I just added is a better way of introducing this concept into the article. (By the way, the original words were not mine.) Tvoz | talk 09:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough ;) Equinox137 10:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

Agree - Not Murder Equinox is correct, the term "murder" is inappropriate and divisive. “Shooting” does not imply accidental at all; it is a word used all the time. If a shooting is considered an accident, it's clarified as an "accidental shooting." I can't believe you're defending the use of the word "murder" in this article, Tvoz. We can’t be throwing terms like that around WP entries so carelessly. (It kinda makes your argument on the image file renaming thing suspect, too…) --Knulclunk 06:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vote, it's a discussion. And there is nothing careless about what I have said. Tvoz | talk 09:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Although you're right that it's a discussion, he's also right in that what you said was careless. Wikipedia ranks among the top on search engines and gains a lot of exposure. Those guardsmen are still alive and have the potential to sue both Wikipedia and the posters for libel in both state and federal court on the basis that they weren't convicted of any crimes - in fact, any indictments were immediately thrown out of court. That is why Wikipedia has a policy that they do follow rather strictly on biographies of living persons.

You may have the opinion that they were "murders" and I respect that and won't begrudge you that opinion. However, putting that in the main article - which is supposed to be a documentation of the event - opens up a whole new can of worms. However, I've noted you said you won't revert it, so I'll quit kicking that dead horse now. Equinox137 10:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Last comment and good night: this is not a biography of living persons, it is an account of an historic event and without any names being mentioned I am not at all sure that you are right that there is a potential threat of libel or that WP:BIO even applies. But the way the article now reads it is the characterization of the killings that is included, and I feel strongly about that being there, as it speaks directly to the reaction of the country at the time of the killings. That the courts didn't pursue this is, I believe, shameful but true. And you really didn't respond to my point about the Simpson-Goldman murders - the determination that someone was murdered is not based on whether any individual is proven guilty. That determination speaks to calling someone a murderer, and I didn't do that. But.... I'm more or less satisfied with that aspect of the piece now. (ALthough I am not at all satisfied with the quality of the piece overall - it does need work, and not because of POV - it needs real references.) Tvoz | talk 11:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct that I didn't respond about Simpson-Goldman....it was getting way too late in the night...some of us have to go to couch in the morning, ya know. Anyways, you're correct - the determination on whether or not someone was murdered is not a conviction, it's based on whether or not a crime was determined to have been committed. In the Simpson-Goldman case - it was determined, in the KS case - it was not.

I agree that this needs some real references, and I can say the POV is even getting better. Equinox137 06:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree-Murder

I argue the credibility of the "...if they're not convicted of murder- IT'S NOT MURDER...PERIOD." claim made by Equinox137 for the following reasons:

• The American Constitution gives Americans the right to protest peacefully.
• In the event that some or all demonstrators are protesting in a reckless fashion, it is the job of any official hired to keep order to preserve life. This means the use of conventional non-lethal weapons.
• Although the guardsmen were aquitted, this DOES NOT settle the issue on the murder of the Kent State students.

* The American Constitution gives Americans the right to protest peacefully. The key word is peacefully. These people were NOT protesting peacefully. Otherwise, the NG wouldn't have been called in the first place.

* In the event that some or all demonstrators are protesting in a reckless fashion, it is the job of any official hired to keep order to preserve life. This means the use of conventional non-lethal weapons. Name a state or federal statute stating this and I will agree with you, whoever you are.

* Although the guardsmen were aquitted, this DOES NOT settle the issue on the murder of the Kent State students. Absolutely it does. In fact, they weren't ACQUITTED, they weren't even TRIED.

How many times do we need to go over this? If you want to call it "murder" at MoveOn.org, DailyKos, or whatever source might support that point of view, that's fine. But claiming so here taints what limited credibility Wikipedia has. Equinox137 08:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How many times do we need to go over this? If you want to call it "murder" at MoveOn.org, DailyKos, or whatever source might support that point of view, that's fine. But claiming so here taints what limited credibility Wikipedia has. THIS IS THE TALK PAGE! I DID NOT EDIT THIS ARTICLE, AND THUS DID NOT "TAINT" THE CREDIBILITY, EQUINOX137. ALSO, MOST DEMONSTRATORS, THOUGH UNORGANIZED, WERE NOT RIOTING OR DEMONSTRATING IN AN OTHERWISE RECKLESS FASHION. ANOTHER THING! THE COURTS DON'T HAVE TO BE RIGHT! JURORS MUST FIND THE DFENDENT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!

However, I will say that I have not yet found any law (state or federal), statute, or local order defining the use of and/or conditions for using any conventional weapons, lethal or nonlethal, against reckless demonstraters.

(1) You don't need to yell, whoever you are. (2) I thought the talk page was about "improving" the article, as opposed to the debate about the event itself, which this has turned to. (3) The events described on May 1 and May 2 involved setting bonfires and chucking beer bottles and other debris at the police. Not exactly holding hands and sing "Kumbaya" or "Give Peace a Chance" was it? (4) Courts don't have to be right, but it's in court where "murder" charges are heard. (5) Yes, jurors must find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, however no jurors did - because this never went to trial. Equinox137 07:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This debate is starting to go too far.

• The "riot" started when several students who had been drinking began hurling empty beer bottles and stones at the guardsmen. People throw things at cops all the time! Only a necessary amount of force is directed at the offenders (please see police brutality or police riot).
• Once again, you are forgetting the First Amendment. Yes, this is the talk page. The talk page is for the discussion of (A) The article or (B) The event to which the article is referring to.
• The charge should not affect the jury's decision. In the OJ Simpson murder case, the courts contradicted themselves! Though aquitted in a criminal court, a civil court found him guilty. The charge? Murder!
• There were civil lawsuits filed. Why don't you check again, Equinox 137?
• Quit calling me "whoever you are"! I have a name. If I could tell you, I would.
• Finally, I was not yelling. I accidently left the Caps Lock putton on.

Actually, as Wikipedia is not an agency of the United States government, nor of any state of the United States, the First Amendment does not apply to Wikipedia. Private corporation/non-profits are allowed to restrict speech within their own property as they see fit. ("Congress shall make no law...") Wikipedia's rules state, as you'll see if you scroll up, that this is the page for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article itself. Not sure how that could be more clear. Natalie 00:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

True...so I've decided to move the debate to WikiProject AntiWar. A vote is open to everyone who would like to contribute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.250.152 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

• This debate is starting to go too far. Agreed
• The "riot" started when several students who had been drinking began hurling empty beer bottles and stones at the guardsmen. People throw things at cops all the time! Only a necessary amount of force is directed at the offenders (please see police brutality or police riot). That's what the dictionary calls a riot. I don't know about Ohio law, but in my state, throwing objects at a law enforcement officer is felony assault on a peace officer. Again I don't know about Ohio law, but that probably extends to the NG that were present to assist local law enforcement. If chucking debris at the cops, committing arson, and preventing responding fire-fighters doesn't qualify as a riot, what does? As far as lethal force, I've gone over it repeatedly - no sense in kicking a dead horse.
• Once again, you are forgetting the First Amendment. Yes, this is the talk page. The talk page is for the discussion of (A) The article or (B) The event to which the article is referring to. In what context am I "forgetting" about the First Amendment?
• The charge should not affect the jury's decision. In the OJ Simpson murder case, the courts contradicted themselves! Though aquitted in a criminal court, a civil court found him guilty. The charge? Murder! No argument about OJ, but in the KS case there was no charge - the criminal indictment was dismissed.
• There were civil lawsuits filed. Why don't you check again, Equinox 137? I never said otherwise. I specifically said "The only thing the U.S. Government could legally do is hear Section 1983 suits (which were all dismissed, IIRC) and appoint a symbolic commission to "investigate" the matter - which is exactly what happened." BTW, a Section 1983 suit IS a federal civil suit (Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1983)
• Quit calling me "whoever you are"! I have a name. If I could tell you, I would. Sign your posts then.
• Finally, I was not yelling. I accidently left the Caps Lock putton on. Fair enough, but leaving Caps Lock on makes it appear you are yelling. I'm sure you've been around the net long enough to know that.
• Actually, as Wikipedia is not an agency of the United States government, nor of any state of the United States, the First Amendment does not apply to Wikipedia. Private corporation/non-profits are allowed to restrict speech within their own property as they see fit. ("Congress shall make no law...") Wikipedia's rules state, as you'll see if you scroll up, that this is the page for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article itself. Not sure how that could be more clear. (1) I never said anything about the First Amendment applying to Wikipedia - where did you get that from? However, libel laws still apply as in the case of John Siegenthaler Sr [3]. While I'm to understand there's federal libel laws don't apply to online corporations - there are state libel laws that do. (2) Didn't you just say "The talk page is for the discussion of (A) The article or (B) The event to which the article is referring to." According to the Wikipedia guideline "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages." [4] Equinox137 05:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• True...so I've decided to move the debate to WikiProject AntiWar. A vote is open to everyone who would like to contribute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.250.152 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

There is no statutory law or case law that cover the use of force, however each police/sheriff's department has what's called a "use of force continuum" that governs their use of force policy. The use of force continuum is usually approved by the City Attorney/District Attorney/AUSA/whatever before it is put in place. When officers deviate from that use of force continuum, that is when you will see excessive force/assault/manslaughter/murder charges filed against the officer by the DA in the jurisdiciton it occurred. A good recent example is the Sean Bell case in NYC.

Here's a generic example of the use of force continuum:

In level I, the subject is considered compliant. The officer's response would be the use of verbal commands and simply his presence. These are known as cooperative controls.

In level II, the subject is considered passively resistant. The officer would respond with contact techniques such as the escort position and other touch techniques.

In level III, the subject is actively resistant. This level would require the officer to use compliance techniques, such as OC spray, or control and restraint techniques.

Level IV involves an assaultive subject. The officer operating within this level of the model would use defensive tactics and impact techniques along with intermediate or personal weapons.

Level V on the use of force model is the highest level of force, deadly force. Here, the subject is in the assaultive stage and is an imminent threat to cause death or serious bodily injury. The officer would be authorized to use deadly force to stop the subject. Equinox137 07:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If the necessary amount of resistave force must be sufficiant to cause "death or serious bodily injury", why did the NG open fire on the students if they were only throwing beer bottles? They lack the necessary accuracy and velocity to be deadly at a distance, and the NG has tanks and armor. A stone against a tank typically does little damage, and a gun could shatter a stone instantly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.250.152 (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

All an officer has to articulate is the reasonable belief that the amount of resistive force is sufficient to cause death or serious injury - which the NG apparently did. Also, I don't remember anything in the Wikipedia article, nor any documentary about tanks being present there. Equinox137 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What about "killings?" "Shootings" only implies that shots were fired and if premeditation is requisite for the term murder then killings should be used instead as it states exactly what occurred. The word might have a negative view but shootings simply isn't accurate to what these national guardsmen did. They intentionally killed unarmed civilians, surely that warrants a term more severe than "shooting."

Some of the students were wounded, not killed. Badagnani 20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Killings" is fine, but consider this - any time a police officer shoots and kills a civilian, whether that civilian is armed or not, whether the officer's actions were justified or not, it's still referred to in the media and elsewhere as a "shooting". Equinox137 03:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break 2

At least in the United States, where both the shootings took place and this website is based, the word "murder" implies malice. I'm of the mind that the guardsmen were definitely in the wrong, but I don't think it meets the general legal definition of murder. And the WP:BLP policy doesn't just apply to its literal namesake - it applies to any living person. If the actions are going to be called murders, each instance should be in attributed quotes. In other instances, I really don't see what the problem with shootings is. That seems pretty neutral/factual to me. Natalie 20:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not writing a legal document and do not have to "meet the general legal definition of murder". Malice? They stopped in unison, they turned in unison, they aimed and they shot directly at the students, fully aware that they had live, deadly ammunition in their guns. They aimed and fired. Not in the air. Not at their feet. They shot Jeffrey Miller in the mouth and killed him. That's aim, friends. That's no accident. That's malice. That's murder by government authority. Then after he was dead they went down to where he was lying and turned him over with a booted foot. One of them planted a "throw-down" gun on him and I guess someone thought better of that disgusting act afterward. Look it up. It's not in the Wikipedia article, but look it up yourself. While you're at it, read the transcripts of the farcical trial - complete with the judge calling the governor "Excellency". Blind justice. They murdered those four and wounded nine. One of them has been in a wheelchair for 37 years. Malice? You can re-write history all you want, but you cannot change the facts. This article has been very carefully tended. It is as NPOV as the subject will allow - Equinox you are on record saying that it is NPOV. We've been round and round on this many times. No, this is not the Daily Kos or MoveON. Nor is it the Birch Society or the Army News. These were not accidental deaths. These were shoot-to-kill murders of unarmed civilian students protesting an illegal war. Exercising their constitutional right to protest, the same right that soldiers are supposed to be fighting to protect. It is the most shameful event in modern US history, and I am not going to stand by while it is whitewashed. Tvoz | talk 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) Duh! You don't think the military might have loaded weapons on occassion? They weren't carrying weapons for their health or to look pretty. They didn't in LA in '92 and they didn't in New Orleans in '05 - and guess what, they had to open fire in those incidences too. (2) I'm on record as of the 6th of January saying that it was NPOV. That was over 2 months ago and it has been edited plenty since. (3) Referring to the event as "murders" will open the POV can of worms all over again because (a) this was not a peaceful protest, it was a riot and (b) the shooters involved were able to articulate fear for their lives before a court of competent jurisdiction. (4) The History Channel just ran an account of the KS shootings with interviews of the police, the guardsmen, and the students and there was no reference by any of them about any planted weapons on anyone.

We can go round and round about this (again) but I will end by saying this - Wikipedia already has a dubious reputation for having an overly liberal bias. In the case, referring to this incidents as "murders" will not help that reputation. Equinox137 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) I believe this was the first time American soldiers shot and killed unarmed civilians, student demonstrators, on American soil. If that doesn't bother you, so be it. They should not have had loaded weapons. (2) Fair enough about the timing of your NPOV acknowledgment -I had not looked at the date. I did not mean to put words in your mouth, so I apologize. I don't think it is POV now, but you're entitled to your opinion. (3) This is very much in dispute. (4) I assume you have also checked the sources I provided regarding this. There was no gun - the guard captain who lied about taking a gun off Jeff Miller's dead body to the grand jury then recanted his lie in court. But the damage was done regarding the claim of self-defense. As for Wikipedia's so-called liberal bias, I've saeen as much arch conservatism here as rank liberalism. Read some of the edit wars on the various candidates' pages. Tvoz | talk 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) No, not by far. The only first was the "student demonstrators" part. Remember that the military was responsible for law enforcement before the creation of police departments. (2) Thank you. (3) Which part? About (a) opening a new can of worms> (b) whether or not it was a "peaceful" protest or (c) whether or not the shooters could articlate a reasonable fear for their lives (the standard in any law enforcement involved shooting)??? (4) Where is your source for all a guard officer committing perjury at a grand jury? At what civil trial (because there was no criminal trial) did this same officer recant his statement? Do you have a source besides DemocraticUnderground?? (Who's leaning are obvious?) Thanks.Equinox137 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What are the sources for the planted gun (on which student was it planted and exactly when and how was it planted, and by whom?), and the turning over of one of the slain students with a booted foot? I don't recall hearing of either of those incidents. Badagnani 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Filo's account states a NG Sergeant (which is not a "Captain" or an "officer") turned the Jeffery Miller's body over with his boot. Nothing about planting a weapon on him. [5] Equinox137 05:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

: INSERTING A COMMENT JUST BELOW THIS BOX

EQUINOX: I just saw this comment above dated March 24 from you. Did you not read the very next comment that was already here before you posted yours - I posted it on March 12 directly below this - where I corrected an error that I made about the gun planting? It gives two sources for the story which was that a Captain in the Guard CLAIMED to the Grand Jury that he found a gun on Jeffrey Miller's dead body, and this was one of the sources for the Guard's incorrect, specious self-defense claim, and that he recanted the claim in court? Why don't you read it now then - it is DIRECTLY below the comment you posted on Saturday. By the way, posting your comments in the middle of a discussion isn't really that helpful for readers, as it could give the false impression that the following comment was in response to yours - in fact my apology below was posted two weeks before your comment, and it was not responding to you, as if your comment made me look into it further. Play nice, won't you? My apology for my error and clarification in fact was posted TWO HOURS after my error, and was not responding to you. I'm putting this here so future readers get the correct flow. Now, why don't you read what I said about sources of the story. I never said that Filo's account was about the false gun story. I said that Filo's eyewitness account - he was there as you know and he saw it - was about a Guardsman turning Jeff Miller's dead body over with his boot. And I did not say the Guardsman who turned over his dead body with his boot was a Captain. The Captain is the one who lied to the Grand Jury and said he took a gun off of Miller's dead body. Lying to a grand jury is a crime, by the way, is it not? Was he still feeling like his life was in danger when he lied to the Grand Jury? Or was he trying to frame the protestors as violent? Four students slaughtered, nine wounded, one paralyzed for life. And you're still making excuses. I would have hoped that 37 years later there would be more dismay and less cover-up. Shameful. Tvoz | talk 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Tvoz. I'm a little confused. I wasn't attempting to make anything seem as though you apologized to me. Either way, this talk page is getting so long, I think it's time that it's archived. I'll try to find the sources you're referring to (in ref. the Captain) and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Which source are you talking about - DemocracticUnderground or Alan Canfora's site? My position on the NG vs. the students/protestors still stands though. Equinox137 04:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I'm moving the end of the "inserted material" box to just below this, as what follows it was actually posted earlier. Yes, archiving sounds like a plan. I'm getting a headache too. Tvoz | talk 04:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

: End of inserted material

Apologies- I misspoke slightly: the self-defense claim was fabricated by a Captain in the Guard who claimed to have found a gun on Jeffrey Miller's dead body and claimed that he confiscated brass knuckles from a protestor; he then produced an actual "throw-down" gun and brass knuckles when questioned by authorities, saying that these were those weapons; he "repeated these false claims under oath when he subsequently testified before the Ohio special grand jury". See Gordon's book 1995 edition, page 188; also see this report. I'll get back to you on the boot (just read it earlier today again, but have to find the source). Tvoz | talk 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, on the Guardsman's boot turning over Jeff Miller's body: see this, John Filo's eyewitness recollection], and I've read it elsewhwere. Tvoz | talk 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What you think is the most shameful event in US history really doesn't matter here. Calling them shootings or killings isn't a whitewash: arguing that the guardsmen were in the right would be a whitewash. Natalie 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

see below

An addendum to my previous comment: I think the horror of this even is perfectly clear from simply reading about the event. I seriously doubt that any reader is going to come across this article, read it, and come to the conclusion that those four students deserved to die. Using a loaded term like murder (or riot, for that matter) almost makes for a weaker impact, because it seems like we are aiming for a specific reaction. Natalie 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

One correction: following the shootings, for months, there were indeed numerous letters to the editor (many from parents of college-aged students) in newspapers in Kent and around the country which expressed the opinion that the students not only deserved to have been killed, but that "they should have shot more" or "all of them." That statement continues to be expressed by some to this day. Not all people are as thoughtful as we Wikipedia editors, I suppose. Even with all the facts, some people still have a need to believe that if the students hadn't done something horrible and deserved it, something like this would never have happened. It makes for an interesting case study in psychology. Badagnani 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

True, there are people who think that, which I think is where the desire to use the word murder comes in. And it's an understandable desire - I think the shootings were attrocious, and so I want other people to think the same way. But coming on to strong in those cases can have the opposite effect, I think, which is why I think we should use a less loaded term. Natalie 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, if there is a book or something that reproduces or analyzes some of these letters to the editor, that would be a great addition to the "Aftermath" section. At present, there is really only imformation on the anti-shooting reactions, for lack of a better term. Natalie 03:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. I don't know of any such source but a few hours in the library with the microfilms of the Record Courier and Beacon Journal would probably turn up a few hits. Badagnani 03:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have two research projects on my plate right now for my real job (college), but I can look for some secondary sources tomorrow or Tuesday. I work at my campus library, conveniently. Natalie 03:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, but I'll post this, not in response to the immediately preceding comments): Look back through the talk pages and you'll find examples of statements made by other editors that the guardsmen were in the right. (I myself blame the governor and president first and foremost, then whoever gave the order to fire, then the individuals who did fire. But I note that many of the guardsmen did -not- fire, and that is significant as well.) There's one source at least that is included in the article that claims that the guardsmen were in the right, and I haven't had a chance to see how that got in there but I'm inclined to remove it as it is not a reliable source. As I said, I think the article is overall as NPOV as the subject will allow - I was responding to what has been said here on Talk, and out in the world, not the content of the article at present. I did not suggest that we include in the article my characterization of it as the most shameful event in modern US history although it is - I am merely trying to cut through some of the equivocating about the horror that you, Natalie, and Badagnani, do see but some do not. I reinstated the word "murder" a few days ago in one place when someone else introduced it because quite honestly I still feel that it should be so stated. But I have not reverted it again, in the interests of consensus - as long as the section remains that includes long-term effects and Spiro Agnew's calling them murders. But unfortunately there are some here who continue to defend the actions and justify the shootings, and that is whitewash if it creeps back into the article, and that is what I won't stand by for. Tvoz | talk 04:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(aribitrary unindent) That all makes a lot of sense, Tvoz. I did misunderstand your own goal; thank you for clarifying. As far as the source that claims the guardsmen were in the right, I didn't happen to notice that but I admit I didn't do a deep reading of the article. If it is a reliable source, I think it's fine to include it as long as any statements made by that source are attributed to the source, instead of being statements made by Wikipedia in general. Of course, if its just somebody's friend John at the bar last night, it should obviously go. And I agree that the section including Agnew's quote and the long-term effects should definitely stay. I would even be open to expanding this section, considering how well known the shootings are, even to people who weren't alive when they happened. Natalie 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tvoz, that's an excellent interview with Filo. Regarding the source from the National Guard magazine, it's full of mistakes, and includes several statements that are diametrically opposed from what everyone saw and experienced that day. Badagnani 04:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you know this site - I am eager to see if this actually comes to pass, and if we can finally get the truth about the order to shoot. Tvoz | talk 05:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re shootings/killings. I agree with Equinox that we should retain "Shootings" as the word. I may be the only one in this group of commentators who was active politically at the time, and FWIW, I participated in several serious protest rallies against the shootings. Nevertheless, intent was never proven,and "shootings" is a pretty strong word in its own right, and is NPOV. (Sorry, if I put this in the wrong location: this page is getting tough to find stuff and edit.)

Bellagio99 15:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Bellagio (fancy meeting you here!) - you're not the only commentator here who was politically active at the time and who was involved in protesting this - I was as well and there may be others. And actually we're not really debating this now - at least I'm not - to be clear, I think that "murder" is the correct word to use, but I am not reinstating it in the article at present - see my comment above from 04:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC) where I explicitly said that (Equinox, please note too). I'll leave it for now with this from the Scranton Commission report, appointed by Nixon:

Even if the guardsmen faced danger, it was not a danger that called for lethal force. The 61 shots by 28 guardsmen certainly cannot be justified. Apparently, no order to fire was given, and there was inadequate fire control discipline on Blanket Hill. The Kent State tragedy must mark the last time that, as a matter of course, loaded rifles are issued to guardsmen confronting student demonstrators. If evidence is uncovered regarding an order to fire, I'll be talking about this again. Tvoz | talk 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again....Tvoz, the Scranton Commission was not a body that had the jurisdicition to investigate this incident. Their existance, while did come out with some sound recommendations, was symbolic. Furthermore, none of those individuals were cops or anyone that would have experience to judge whether or not there was justification for lethal force. The state courts in Ohio did and the outcome is obvious. Was their an "order" to fire? No - no order was/is needed. Was there inadequate fire control disicpline? Absolutely - otherwise there wouldn't have been two students down that were not involved in the protests/riot. If you think it's possible KS is the last time the military will ever have loaded weapons at a demonstration or riot, think again. The military, both the NG and active, has dealt with several incidents since, as I've referred to repeatedly. Would you want to have to respond to a civil disturbance, where there is always the possibility of weapons being discharged at you, unarmed? If you've ever worked in law enforcement, you'll know what I mean. Equinox137 04:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is a little off, Equinox. Kent State wasn't a "disturbance". It was a legal demonstration - see the First Amendment - which the students there had every right to participate in. Coming, armed, to a legal demontration is at best unnecessary. And, in the case of Kent State, it led to horrendous consequences. You have some experience in law enforcement? What does it tell you about firing point blank at people that you have no reason to think were armed. Frankly, I can only hope that someone with your atttitude stays as far away from law enforcement or military work as possible.PaulLev 08:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Did I misread the part in this very article about the arson (bonfires in the city and burning down the ROTC building) and civil disturbances (i.e. throwing beer bottles and debris at cops) that the local police were unable to control, leading to the NG being called in the first place? If these people were peaceful demonstrators, I would agree with everything that Tvoz has said, but these were not peaceful demonstrators. To answer your question about firing point blank (which didn't happen at KS) ant people that one has no reason to think were armed (which the guardsmen had no way of knowing at that time) - I can tell you it doesn't work that way. The legal ability to use force doesn't hinge on whether or not the subject is armed, it depends on whether I as an officer can articulate the imminent threat of deadly or bodily harm.

Frankly, I can only hope that someone with your atttitude stays as far away from law enforcement or military work as possible. I'm sorry you feel that way Paul, but as listed in my page, I already did military work a long time ago and if it's not obvious, I'm already in law enforcement work. Equinox137 06:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You know very well that two of the students killed were not involved in the protest, the distance between the students and Guard was very great (have you visited the site to see for yourself?), and the Guard was not in danger at the moment the few members huddled together, then turned, aimed, and fired. Your comment is simplistic and oversimplification should be absolutely be avoided on both sides of the issue. Badagnani 06:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Which comment, Bad? Equinox137 06:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There you go, Equinox, mis-stating the facts. "Furthermore, none of those individuals were cops or anyone that would have experience to judge whether or not there was justification for lethal force." Really? Have you bothered to read up on the Scranton Commission, which is actually called the "President's Commission on Campus Unrest"? Or are you too busy accusing people of being Democrats? One of the nine members of the President's Commission was New Haven Police Chief James F. Ahren. He might dispute your claim that none of the commission members were cops. Another was Benjamin Davis. Let's look at Mr. Davis' background. He attended West Point, and graduated thirty-fifth out of 276 in his class. Not bad. Then he went into the Air Force, where he rose to the rank of Lieutenant General. Perhaps he had some experience at judging military response to events. He retired from the Air Force in 1970 and became Cleveland's Public Safety Director - the person responsible for police, fire and EMS services. DOes that sound something like someone who might have experience to make judgments about lethal force? Furthermore, you have said several times in various discussions that the Commission had no jurisdiction to investigate Well, you see, they were appointed by the President. They were charged with investigating and reporting. As an independent entity, not an Ohio court in bed with His Excellency, Governor Rhodes, as the presiding judge at one of the trials referred to him. And let's not forget that the President who appointed them was Richard Nixon, hardly a friend of the protestors. They had Presidential authority to investigate - do you get that? By the way, you are correct that their report consisted of recommendations, not unlike the 9/11 Commission. That's the way it works. Congress makes the laws. But to trivialize the importance of the President's Commission's report, as you insist on doing, does a disservice to history and to the truth. However, you're not alone. Nixon distanced himself [6] from its findings too. Tvoz | talk 06:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Does that sound something like someone who might have experience to make judgments about lethal force? No. While you've got me that Chief Ahren was a cop, Davis was not. Being in the Air Force and retiring to become a "Public Safety Director", while gives the man some credibility with foreign and military policy, doesn't necessarily qualify one as educated in law enforcement use of force. Anyone that works in law enforcement can smell bureaucrat a mile away with that one.

Do you really understand how the Constitution works, Tvoz? In particular, the Tenth Amendment? Just because the President "gives" a comission the authority to investigate a matter, doesn't mean they had the legal authority to do so. This is for similar reasons that the federal government couldn't intervene in the Terri Shaivo case. Let me repeat this for one last time, this was solely a state matter. There were no federal assets involved at KS: no U.S. Marshals, no active duty military....nothing. There was no martial law declared, like in the '92 LA Riots. There has to be a federal issue for the U.S. Government or courts to get involved in a case, situation, or incident. Contrary to what you see in the movies, they can't just come in and take charge when they want to. The only thing the U.S. Government could legally do is hear Section 1983 suits (which were all dismissed, IIRC) and appoint a symbolic commission to "investigate" the matter - which is exactly what happened.

As far as "trivializing" this commission's report, I've said in the past that It did, to its credit, recommend changes to police and military procedures for civil disturbances - which were implemented. What more do I need to say for Christsakes? Equinox137 06:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Tag

I've made several edits such as removing "attempted to justify" ref:Nixon, speculation, and unsourced references to vague "several other studies". What else needs to be done to de-POV this article so the tag can be removed? Personally, I don't see many POV issues left. Equinox137 07:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh - didn't see this before I wrote on yr page - I think your edits improve the piece. I agree that it's pretty much NPOV now. Tvoz | talk 08:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then. Unless anyone objects, I'm removing the tag. I'm also canning the statement about the Kent store owners until someone can source it. Equinox137 08:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Court Order?

I ask this because I really don't know. The article states (Governor Rhodes) also claimed he would obtain a court order declaring a state of emergency, banning further demonstrations, and gave the impression that a situation akin to martial law had been declared. In most states, the governor can declare a state emergency or martial law independent of a court order but subject to a timeframe. Was this not the case in 1970 Ohio? This statement sounds a little suspect, but I don't know about Ohio law to make an accurate edit on it. Equinox137 08:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scranton Commission

I think it's important to note in the article that the Scranton Commission was a federal body that was tasked to "investigate" KS among other incidents. Since no federal assets were involved at KS such as the regular US Army (as in the 82nd Airborne Division, the 101st, etc), the FBI, the US Marshals, etc...KS was purely a state matter. The feds did not ever have the jurisdiction to get involved, until the time that Section 1983 civil suits (i.e. civil rights suits) were filed in federal court - years after the fact. Thus, the Scranton Commission was in reality a powerless body in the vein of the US Civil Rights Commission or the 9/11 commission that could only issue an advisory opinion. What the Scranton Commission finally reported gave the left some political ammunition, but it had no actual effect on the students nor guardsmen involved themselves. Equinox137 09:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That "advisory opinion" is exactly the point - there is a long tradition of presidential commissions like the Warren Commission, 9/11 commission, etc - whose independent investigations can determine the truth of what happened in a particular event, outside of the control of, say, a governor who was intimately involved in what led to an event such as Kent State. Their independence is the point - so don't minimize their importance here. We're supposed to be writing an article that tells what happened - not limited to what may have been tainted decisions not to indict. The Scranton Commission was an important piece of this, not a political tool of the left. Tvoz | talk 09:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it was a political tool of the left (in fact, Scanton was a Republican, if I'm not mistaken), however what I am saying is that it was a federal commission designed to investigate an incident which had nothing to do with the US Government itself. The police were state agents as were as the national guardsmen. All the subsequent legal issues involved state law, such as the indictments of the guardsmen and the indictments and prosecution of the students noted in the article. Everything involved the State of Ohio solely except for the federal Section 1983 civil suits from 1970-1979 (which is pretty common in excessive force claims against law enforcement to this day). The Warren Commission, the 9/11 Commission, the Church Commission, the Cox Commission, etc.. all involved federal issues or issues involving federal law. The Scranton Commssion did not.

It did, to its credit, recommend changes to police and military procedures for civil disturbances - which were implemented.

The only thing I'm saying is that those facts might be noted in the article and we can let the reader decide how important they were. If not, it's not big enough of an issue to start a new POV debate over... Just a suggestion :) Equinox137 10:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the I.F. Stone quote from Agnew? Your edit suammry says it wasn't blocked - not sure whatyou mean by that - but I think it should be in. Tvoz | talk 09:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I reentered it. I deleted it earlier by mistake. Equinox137 10:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Huston Plan info is not tangential

Here is an online source that links the Nixon move to implement the Huston Plan against anti-war protestors with the Kent State shootings:

Final Report Of The Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect To Intelligence Activities

United States Senate

April 23 (under authority of the order of April 14), 1976

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIm.htm

(emphasis added) “A decision was made. The President would be asked to meet with the directors of the four intelligence agencies to take some action that might curb the growing violence… The meeting between President Nixon and the intelligence directors was not held in May, because plans for, and the reaction to, the April 29 invasion of Cambodia in Southeast Asia disrupted the entire White House schedule. In the aftermath of this event, the meeting "became even more important," recalls Huston. The expansion of the Indochina war into Cambodia and the shootings at Kent State and Jackson State had focused the actions on antiwar movement and civil rights activists. …As soon as the reaction to the Cambodian incursion had stabilized somewhat, the meeting between President Nixon and the intelligence directors was rescheduled for June 5th. It was to start a chain of events that would culminate in the Huston Plan.”

--Wowaconia 08:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good. If it is directly related to Kent State, then that should be made clear in the text of the article (it isn't, now). Badagnani 08:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you've added the date. Nice work. Badagnani 08:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Nixon tapes, talk, and focus around Kent State shootings

On a discussion on my talk-page this was requested

"The recently released Nixon tapes show that Nixon apparently also asked Haldeman, after he heard the news about the shootings, if the shootings had been set up or something similar, but I cannot find this reference. If you come across it, please post to the Kent State discussion page, because it's significant."

While I could not find any Nixon comment wondering if someone in his Administration had set up the Kent State shootings, I believe this is the information being sought...

All of the following quotes are taken from the book

Four Dead in Ohio: Was There a Conspiracy at Kent State? By William A. Gordon, 1995, North Ridge Books, Lake Forest CA

[edit] "go beat up on these demonstrators"

Gordon asked John Ehrlichman Nixon’s chief domestic advisor “You wrote in your book during the 1968 campaign Nixon told the Secret Service to go beat up on these demonstrators…And then the last time there was a leak of White House tapes, journalist Seymour Hersh revealed that Nixon told Haldeman to get Teamster thugs to beat up on protestors.”

Ehrlichman replied “That was the nature of excess rhetoric a lot of the time. Nixon knew darned well the Secret Service would not do it. He knew darned well I would not have the Secret Service do it. So he felt comfortable in venting his spleen that way. Now, as between him and Haldemann, I do not know what came out of that, but he [Nixon] was given to these rhetorical excess, and it is going to be very hard for people, when they listen to the tapes, to be able to separate the real from the hubris."

[edit] "these bums"

Gordon writes “Three days before the shootings, Nixon, speaking extemporaneously at the Pentagon, denounced antiwar protestors as ‘bums’. Nixon said: ‘You know, you see these bums, you know, blowing up campuses. Listen, the boys on the college campuses are the luckiest people in the world—going to the greatest universities—and here they are burning up the books, storming around like this, I mean—you name it. Get rid of the war and there’ll be another one. And then, out there, we got kids who are just doing their duty, and I’ve seen them. They stand tall and they’re proud.’”

John Ehrlichman told Gordon that this was solely about one event “The ‘bums’ business was related to an incident in Stanford, where a professor from India had all his research papers destroyed in a fire which was the result of a protest.”

[edit] "invites tragedy"

On May 4, press secretary Ronald L. Ziegler read Nixon's statement that Kent State "should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy." At the time Newsweek declared that "this came dangerously close to saying the students deserved to be shot." Ehrlichman agreed with that characterization of Nixon's thought that they had brought it upon themselves.

Gordon reports this was the common take at the time:

"J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the FBI, definitely felt that way. A memo has surfaced that Hoover sent to five of his top assistants on May 11, 1970. In it, he admitted telling White House aide Egil Krogh 'that the students invited (the shootings) and got what they deserved.'

"Immediately after the shooting, many of the townspeople and Guardsmen who were on the campus reacted in the following manner: 'How do I feel? I feel it’s about time somebody let them have it.'

“'Shooter' James Pierce 'didn’t feel they [the demonstrators] were people but "savage animals."' That is what Pierce wrote in the after-actions report his Guard superiors asked him to fill out.

"Two-G Troopers, Sergeant Lawrence Shafer (who did fire) and Lieutenant Alexander Stevenson (who denied firing, although not all the attorneys believed him) both admitted that while they had manned command posts the night before the shootings, they had bayoneted men who were sitting in cars. Shafer admitted under oath that he had bayonetted a disabled Vietnam veteran who had bad-mouthed him because he had been in no mood to take any guff."

[edit] On Nixon's focus

In Gordon's interview Ehrlichman also says that when Nixon decided to go into Cambodia, “He called me in and said, “Look, I’m going to have to lay aside domestic matters for a period of perhaps ten days and you are going to have to bring me all the decisions you want made right quick. Otherwise they are going to have to be deferred for a week or ten days. …The expectation was that he was not going to have to devote attention at all to domestic matters…The Kent State shootings derailed that assumption that he was going to be able to stay out of domestic affairs.”

Ehrlichman characterizes Nixon's general view on protestors as secure in the knowledge that the polls were with him so he did not have to care too much about them, he could even use examples of the acts by the more militant among the demonstrators to appeal to the majority of Americans who wanted law, order, and security. Remember "Within a week of the shooting, a Newsweek poll indicated that 58 percent of Americans blamed students for the deaths at Kent State. Only 11 percent blamed the National Guard."

Gordon also notes that H. R. Haldeman in The Haldeman Diaries said that “Nixon was very disturbed by the killings and ‘afraid that his decision [to invade Cambodia] set it off.’”

I leave it to the consensus of editors of this page to do what they will with the above info, I have to get back to filling the massive gaps in our articles about South America.:--Wowaconia 10:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, I'm pretty sure this just came out in the last 2-3 years, with the release of the tapes. He asked, something like the day after the shootings, if they'd been "fixed" or something similar. Badagnani 10:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I found only two references to him using "fixed" on tapes and none of them were about Kent State and even conspiracy sites that claim he orchastrated murder at Kent State to punish students who had shouted him down in previous appearances make any mention of him saying anything incriminating on the tapes (which would go far in arguing their position).--Wowaconia 12:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, you're correct--he was referring to the photo of the napalmed child in Vietnam as possibly having been "fixed. " I remembered wrong. Badagnani 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Norman

There's a thoroughly researched Tampa Tribune article about Terry Norman here. Badagnani 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)