Difference between revisions of "Talk:Kent State protests"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(to Mark - again) |
DrSandstone (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
: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). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:19, 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). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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? -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 11:55, 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 [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:11, 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 [[User:Markr|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:30, 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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:30, 1 December 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 16:55, December 1, 2008
"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)
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)