Idiot in Austin dead
- Thread starter Rhodes101
- Start date
It is just too bad that most, not all, of that crowd (mob) was ridiculing those who were really putting their lives on the line to protect those freedoms. You know like those who "spit" on us in airports. Yeah, great people. Called the police pigs, soldiers baby killers. I can assure you that getting spit on is not fun. I can also assure you that it took all of my self-control to not react to that attack. Why was that "thing'" that spit on me not arrested for simple assault? OH yeah, she expressing her freedom.
Re-read the poem on my signature. We mean soldiers provide your freedoms. Not loud mouth mal-contents.
Rhodes101
Not a Member
You have a problem with loud mouth mal-contents?
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
Don't you think that might be a bit of a stretch? I'm thinking that a soldier that lost their life in combat serving his Country is far and away more deserving of our respect.
Is there different levels of respect? I thought respect was respect...
so I can respect you as level 1 and a soldier as level 5 A LEO as level 3 and so forth..
so I can respect you as level 1 and a soldier as level 5 A LEO as level 3 and so forth..
Is there different levels of respect? I thought respect was respect...
so I can respect you as level 1 and a soldier as level 5 A LEO as level 3 and so forth..
Yeah, there is basic respect shown to all people until they do something to lose it. Then there is the respect shown to those who earn it by their sacrifice and actions.
Rhodes101
Not a Member
Ever ponder the theory that maybe just maybe that some were supporting the troops by asking that they not be sent to fight and perhaps die fighting in another countries civil war?
If they truly were against our troops why were they protesting to bring them home alive. Yes sometimes we must fight sometimes we send boys of to die for no reason.
Since you trust government so little, why do you trust that they are ALWAYS right when sacrificing our servicemens blood?
First off, it was NOT a civil war. We were engaged with the Soviets there just as we were in Korea and many other places in the world.
How is spitting on me support? Was that showing me just how much they wanted me home?
They were ignorant as to what was really going on. Few ever took the time to learn what the "Cold War" was. Few today really know or care to.
I don't believe that we always use our military correctly. Kosavo is a prime example of sending troops into harms way for no reason. Using the military and getting them killed in Somalia.
I lived the "Cold War". Gave 20 years of my life to it. I was immersed in it's reality. Maybe someday the reality will come to light. I doubt it, but it would be nice. I have even less faith in our media than I do our government. I find it very unlikely that they would ever print a honest history even if it was handed to them.
Not true. The Soviets were trying to take over the world. During that same time they were murdering 25 million or so in their country and in many of the other countries that they enslaved.
Can you tell me who started the "Cold War"? What action was it? Explain to me how that was part of a "civil war".
When did the Soviets get involved in S.E. Asia? Why?
Can you tell me who started the "Cold War"? What action was it? Explain to me how that was part of a "civil war".
When did the Soviets get involved in S.E. Asia? Why?
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
The difference is someone has done something that is deserving of our respect. The other should be shown respect.OntarioVanMan said:
If you really meant that, your respect for someone's deeds would be meaningless.OntarioVanMan said:so I can respect you as level 1 and a soldier as level 5 A LEO as level 3 and so forth..
To me thats similar to saying "because you are a male, your a man"
Good answer, right to the point and historically correct. How silly.
Rhodes101
Not a Member
apology accepted.
How is the weather where you are? We are expecting an ice/snow storm tomorrow.
Rhodes101
Not a Member
How is the fishing?
I have not been able to get out. Too much to do on the truck. I hear that they are doing good on perch through the ice. I don't know when I will get to go again. Tomorrow I take my dad to the cardioligist then back in service on Tues at 6am. Running your own business sure cuts into life.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
NO - what I mean is that at the time they were shot, none of the four (including the two that actually were protesters) were using weapons of any sort against the Guardsmen.
From the Justice Department's summary of FBI reports:
"Although both Miller and Krause had probably been in the front ranks of the demonstrators initially, neither was in a position to pose even a remote danger to the National Guard at the time of the firing."
Of course, the other two (Scheuer and Schroeder) were just innocent passersby - they were not protesters.
Well, the last time I looked, being a protester wasn't a criminal act in these here United States ..... in fact, I seem to recall something ..... what was it ? ..... oh yeah:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an estabiishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The fact is, two of the individuals (Miller and Krause) were protesters - but that right is guaranteed to them by the fact that they were citizens of this country under the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Whether they were rioters - or even whether a riot was even occurring at the time of the shootings is open to debate.
If they were involved in riotous behavior and truly criminal activity at some point (other than when the shootings occurred), then they were certainly guilty of crimes - but in any case, even if that were true, it doesn't excuse the actions of those that took their lives.
There is ample circumstantial evidence that indeed, that is exactly what occurred. I would encourage to you read a couple of things:
The Report of the President's Commission on Campus Unrest (aka The Scranton Commission);
and
The Justice Department's Summary of FBI Reports (of the incident)
"This report is a summary, prepared sometime in July 1970 by the Justice Department's Civil Rights division, of the FBI reports on Kent State. The purpose of such summaries is to provide guidelines for possible prosecution under federal law." (the above would be prosecution of the Guardsmen)
Both reports contain things which are not complementary to both the guard and the protesters, and I believe are fairly balanced.
To quote from the latter:
"Approximately 45 Guardsmen did not fire their weapons or take any other action to defend themselves. Most of the National Guardsmen who did fire their weapons do not specifically claim that they fired because their lives were in danger. Rather, they generally simply state in their narrative that they fired after they heard others fire or because after the shooting began, they assumed an order to fire in the air had been given. As a general rule, most Guardsmen add the claim that their lives were or were not in danger to the end of their statements almost as an afterthought."
"Six Guardsmen, including two sergeants and Captain Srp of Troop G stated pointedly that the lives of the members of the Guard were not in danger and that it was not a shooting situation. The FBI interviews of the Guardsmen are in many instances quite remarkable for what is not said, rather than what is said. Many Guardsmen do not mention the students or that the crowd or any part of it was "advancing" or "charging." Many do not mention where the crowd was or what it was doing."
"We have some reason to believe that the claim by the National Guard that their lives were endangered by the students was fabricated subsequent to the event. The apparent volunteering by some Guardsmen of the fact that their lives were not in danger gives rise to some suspicions. One usually does not mention what did not occur. Additionally, an unknown Guardsman, age 23, married, and a machinist by trade was interviewed by members of the Knight newspaper chain. He admitted that his life was not in danger and that he fired indiscriminately into the crowd. He further stated that the Guardsmen had gotten together after the shooting and decided to fabricate the story that they were in danger of serious bodily harm or death from the students. The published newspaper article (see Appendix 1) quoted the Guardsman as saying:
"The guys have been saying that we got to get together and stick to the same story, that it was our lives or them, a matter of survival. I told them I would tell the truth and wouldn't get in trouble that way."
If accurate, the Guardsman who took the above stand, was a courageous person indeed - to willingly accept responsibility for his own actions (even to the point of a possible admission of culpability of murder), and refuse to lie and participate in what was ultimately a coverup - possibly while under direct threats to his own life (potential threats being just a guess on my part, but it seems entirely reasonable to me, considering what both he and his "brothers-in-arms" had just done: murder non-threatening civilians, at least some of whom were completely unarmed)
Further:
"Also, a chaplain of Troop G spoke with many members of the National Guard and stated that they were unable to explain to him why they fired their weapons. We do not know the specific individuals with whom the chaplain spoke."
"There are certain facts that we can presently establish to a reasonable certainty. .... Some rocks wee thrown and curses were shouted. No verbal warning was given to the students immediately prior to the time the Guardsmen fired. .... No effort was made to obtain Company C's assistance. There was no tear gas fired at the students, although, as noted, at least some Guardsmen, including two officers in Company G, were aware that a limited number of canisters remained. There was no request by any Guardsman that tear gas be used."
"There was no request from any Guardsman for permission to fire his weapon. Some Guardsmen, including some who claimed their lives were in danger and some who fired their weapons, had their backs to the students when the firing broke out. There was no initial order to fire."
"The Guardsmen were not surrounded. Regardless of the location of the students following them, photographs and television film show that only a very few students were located between the Guard and the commons. They could easily have continued in the direction in which they had been going."
"Although many claim they were hit with rocks at some time during the confrontation, only one Guardsman, Lawrence Shafer, was injured on May 4, 1970, seriously enough to require any kind of medical treatment. He admits his injury was received some 10 to 15 minutes before the fatal volley was fired. His arm, which was badly bruised, was put in a sling and he was given medication for pain. One Guardsman specifically states that the quantity of rock throwing was not as great just prior to the shooting as it had been before."
"A few Guardsmen do not state that they thought the first shot was from a sniper, but do state that the first shot, in their opinion, did not come from an M-1 rifle; in this connection, it is alleged that the sound was muffled or that it came from what they thought was an M-79 grenade launcher, converted for firing tear gas. Some construction workers also reported hearing fire from a small caliber weapon prior to the firing by the National Guard. The great majority of Guards do not state that they were under sniper fire and many specifically state that the first shots came from the national Guardsmen."
"The FBI has conducted an extensive search and has found nothing to indicate that any person other than a Guardsman fired a weapon. As a part of their investigation, a metal detector was used in the general area where Lieutenants Kline and Fallon indicated they saw bullets hit the ground. A .45 bullet was recovered, but again nothing to indicate it had been fired by other than a Guardsman. Students and photographers on the roofs of Johnson and Taylor Halls state there was no sniper on the roofs."
"At the time of the shooting, the National Guard clearly did not believe that they were being fired upon. No Guardsman claims he fell to the ground or took any other evasive action and all available photographs show the Guard at the critical moments in a standing position and not seeking cover. In addition, no Guardsman claims he fired at a sniper or even that he fired in the direction from which he believed the sniper shot. Finally, there is no evidence of the use of any weapons at any time in the weekend prior to the May 4 confrontation; no weapon was observed in the hands of any person other than a Guardsman, with the sole exception of Terry Norman, during the confrontation. Norman, a free lance photographer, was with the Guardsmen most of the time during the confrontation"
Again, the above is from the DOJ's summary of the FBI reports.
Last edited: