About Us

[email protected]

On Tue, 24 May 2011 15:44:12 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2011 11:12:40 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

The breakdown in "respect for authority" back then was because those in
authority no longer deserved respect. Whoever issued live ammunition to
those National Guard thugs at Kent State should have been put on trial.

There were plenty of people who should have stood trial. Did anyone go
to jail for burning down the buildings at the college? How about the
ones who assaulted the firemen who came to put out the fires?
That was what prompted the armed response in the first place.

1. My recollection is that it was the ROTC building that was set afire,
rather than "buildings." But my recollection could be wrong. No one was
charged with the arson.

It begs the question, why not? Any time you have arson the potential
for loss of life exists and when they attacked the fire department
that chance escalated.

Correct, but there's a difference between potential loss of life and
actual loss of life, esp. in a courtroom.

2. The Guard was called in to quell a rowdy, mostly drunk crowd of
students, biker gang members and others who began pitching beer bottles
at the local police. No firemen were involved at that point. The local
mayor called the governor, who agreed to send in the Guard.

I suppose the question might be, who should they have called? Do you
think Ohio State Troopers are any less likely to shoot people?
I do agree they *might* be better trained but if they are like
Maryland or Florida state troopers they are just "speeder maids"

Once again, whoever issued ammo to the Guard should have been put on trial.

We are still not sure what orders they had. If you can believe some
reports it was a sargent who started shooting first. There are other
reports of someone shooting at them first but I am skeptical.
I agree they should have had riot trained troops there, maybe city
cops from Cleveland, not weekend warriors but I bet if you did, there
would be a lot more students beaten to a bloody pulp.

BAR[_2_]

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 24 May 2011 15:44:12 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2011 11:12:40 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

The breakdown in "respect for authority" back then was because those in
authority no longer deserved respect. Whoever issued live ammunition to
those National Guard thugs at Kent State should have been put on trial.

There were plenty of people who should have stood trial. Did anyone go
to jail for burning down the buildings at the college? How about the
ones who assaulted the firemen who came to put out the fires?
That was what prompted the armed response in the first place.

1. My recollection is that it was the ROTC building that was set afire,
rather than "buildings." But my recollection could be wrong. No one was
charged with the arson.

It begs the question, why not? Any time you have arson the potential
for loss of life exists and when they attacked the fire department
that chance escalated.

Correct, but there's a difference between potential loss of life and
actual loss of life, esp. in a courtroom.

Did the arsonists do a walk through of the building to ensure that there
were not humans in the building before they set it a fire?

[email protected]

On Wed, 25 May 2011 18:06:23 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 24 May 2011 15:44:12 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2011 11:12:40 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

The breakdown in "respect for authority" back then was because those in
authority no longer deserved respect. Whoever issued live ammunition to
those National Guard thugs at Kent State should have been put on trial.

There were plenty of people who should have stood trial. Did anyone go
to jail for burning down the buildings at the college? How about the
ones who assaulted the firemen who came to put out the fires?
That was what prompted the armed response in the first place.

1. My recollection is that it was the ROTC building that was set afire,
rather than "buildings." But my recollection could be wrong. No one was
charged with the arson.

It begs the question, why not? Any time you have arson the potential
for loss of life exists and when they attacked the fire department
that chance escalated.

Correct, but there's a difference between potential loss of life and
actual loss of life, esp. in a courtroom.

Did the arsonists do a walk through of the building to ensure that there
were not humans in the building before they set it a fire?

Which doesn't relate to the comment I made. Try again.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Gas prices and power boating	wf3h	General	81	May 1st 07 05:44 PM
Group claims PWC sales up, accidents down, and gas prices not reducing boating activity	Chuck Gould	General	0	September 1st 06 12:38 AM

Menu

About Us