Talk:Kent State protests

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Although the adjutant general of the Ohio National Guard said that a sniper had fired a shot, many Americans felt that there was no justification for the guardsmen to fire into the crowd at all." Uh. I'm not sure what this is supposed to say... It doesn't really follow. Any suggestions for how to fix it? Barikada 01:16, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

I vote remove it. The first sentence is irrelevant (we already know that the ONG fired shots) and the second part is an opinion (with ad populum overtones). HelpJazz 01:19, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
I think the quote is implying that the ONG had been fired upon by a sniper, justifying their firing their weapons. Am I alone in that interpretation? -DrSandstone 11:55, 1 December 2008 (EST)
That's the report I recall reading, when I was reading up on the history of the incident around a year ago. On the other hand, it's hard to understand how firing into a crowd would have any effect on a sniper. doesn't really make sense, but if it was an official response, it should probably still be included. -DrSandstone 12:10, 1 December 2008 (EST)
If I had been a national guard officer at the time, I would have issued wise rules of engagement to my men. I really doubt these guys had been given any kind of training about crowd control. --Ed Poor Talk 12:04, 1 December 2008 (EST)
The documentary that I watched about the incident indicated that the officers had done poorly in coordinating the troops, putting them in very dangerous situations. The interviews indicated that many of these National Guardsmen, all relatively the same age as the protesters, were quite scared for their safety. And, if I recall correctly, some of them had heard the order to fire, though they were in quite a chaotic situation. -DrSandstone 12:10, 1 December 2008 (EST)

One student was wounded by National guardsmen and she was shot another 6 times by aimed fire as she lay on the ground. The guardsmen fired at obviously unarmed civilians in contravention of US Law that forbids the army being used in police matters Markr 11:11, 1 December 2008 (EST)

2nd request, sorry to split the thread. We need to cite the law and describe its interpretation. Everyone agrees that police and military should not open fire on peaceful, unarmed civilians. It's the shades of gray that has everyone upset. --Ed Poor Talk 11:30, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia's American History Lecture and this article

The American History Lecture clearly states that four peaceful protesters were shot dead. Should the article not reflect that interpretation? ChristopherM 22:34, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I agree. Except, I am 99% positive those killed were students on there way to class and not protesters. Wrong place, wrong time.--jpatt 22:43, 4 December 2008 (EST)