Vietnam Protest Video~Kent State Shooting
Here are the lyrics to the Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young anthem:
Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it.
Soldiers are cutting us down.
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?
...
Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.
There are web sites devoted to this subject, among which are this one and this one. Here is the story of one of the survivors, left paralyzed after the attack.
The wikipedia article says,
The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre, occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. Four students were killed and nine others wounded. The students were protesting the American invasion of Cambodia which President Richard Nixon launched on April 25, and announced in a television address five days later.
Posts
I was eight at the time and I remember it from a different perspective. My Dad was a Deputy and I remember him telling about riots. I know whenever I saw riots on the news and that was all the time I was always afraid my Dad was in the middle of it.
ReplyDeleteI was at the KKK riot in Memphis in 1998. It can be a very frighting thing when it's thousands of people and there are only a hundred of you.
I can see the POV of the commander of the troops at Kent State but I think it's obvious poor decisions were made that day.
I remember hearing folks say the kids must have done something wrong if the national guardsmen shot them. I never trusted armed uniformed people again after that day. I've heard it said that "with power comes responsibility" . My experience is that with power comes a willingness to abuse it that increases as the power increases. People empowered to bear arms in the name of the state should be well enough trained to be able to avoid acting with violence out of fear. It's a dangerous job. I know that. If the fear factor is too great there are safer jobs.
ReplyDeleteNot that I have any strong feelings about it. Hmmm...
Fear or paranoia as I call it is a normal part of the day in law enforcement. Thousands of LEO's make good decisions everyday in situations that would make most people pee their pants.
ReplyDeleteOur agency did riot training after the riot. They saw the need. I understand military units now often receive riot training. This gives good insight into mob mentality along with tactical moves that can often prevent any injuries.
I think part of the problem was using military units. The military is trained to kill people and break things. I understand the need to use the Guard but it should be under direction of law enforcement.
Law Enforcement normally understands escalation of force.
I have seen some who become badge heavy and abuse their authority. Most are shut down and sat down by their superiors. If not they are shut down by their coworkers.
I don't think many understand that officers often feel powerless. They often feel to be the one abused. It's a difficult thing to explain to someone who's never walked that thin blue line.
"I don't think many understand that officers often feel powerless. They often feel to be the one abused. It's a difficult thing to explain to someone who's never walked that thin blue line."
ReplyDeleteThey're the ones with the guns. I have relatives in law enforcement, so I sympathize with some of their issues. But that doesn't help my fear of the uniformed gun. I understand abuse of power. I've seen it done. The assumption many make that anyone accused or attacked by folks wearing uniforms must have done something to deserve it scares me.
There's a lot of fear in my comments, isn't there. And I trace the roots of it back to the Kent State killings.
I can understand the fear produced by tragic events. I deal with it everyday.
ReplyDeleteWhen a uniformed LEO stops someone the assumption they have done something wrong comes from society.
A LEO's ability to prevent chaos comes from voluntary compliance. That's because we are civilized and inherently we know we should follow the rules of that community.
Carrying a gun has nothing to do with it. A gun is a tool and it's rarely if ever used by an officer.
Is it the gun or the authority that frightens you? I've never seen a gun jump and shoot anyone.
LEO's are just normal people with a specific skill set. I always suggest people ask for a ride along or try out the citizen's academy.
Ride in a unit for eight hours with a Human Being trying to do an impossible job and you get a small glimpse of their world.
Your probably not going to like this but the kids at Kent State where doing something wrong. They were acting out in such a manner that they were asked to leave. The kids/mob refused to leave and acted in a manner that caused fear of bodily harm to the authorities.
The actions of those authorities can never be justified.
The actions of the mob dictated that the authorities had to act.
The kids in the mob/riot have to take some responsibility.
I support civil disobedience but civil and mob/riot cannot be connected. They are polar opposites.
"Is it the gun or the authority that frightens you?"
ReplyDeleteIt's the gun (or any other weapon) in the service of abusive authority that frightens me.
"Ride in a unit for eight hours with a Human Being trying to do an impossible job and you get a small glimpse of their world."
No, thanks.
"Your probably not going to like this but the kids at Kent State where doing something wrong. They were acting out in such a manner that they were asked to leave."
See? There you go. Assuming that the authority was right and the kids must have been doing wrong. Being asked to leave by the authority doesn't mean the kids were doing something wrong, just that the authorities wanted them to leave. And refusing an order to leave should not be punishable by death.
"The actions of the mob dictated that the authorities had to act."
The actions of the kids on that college campus did not dictate that the authorities had to kill. And blindly kill, not targeting students involved in threatening behavior (and even then, did the guardsman have to _kill_ them?), but shooting and killing in a random fashion just into the crowd. It was in no way justifiable.
I realize stress and fear are responsible for people doing horrible things they bitterly regret afterwards, and I feel sorry for the guardsmen who realized the horrible thing they'd done.
I feel bad for the Guardsmen and the kids. I'm sure they relive that moment over and over again.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm suggesting is to look at the situation from a completely objective POV.
I'm sure that's very difficult when your connected to an event.
I'm not assuming the kids were in the wrong.
The mob acted and the authorities acted both have to take responsibility.
Mob mentality is unique. People will do things in a Mob they would never consider in a normal situation.
Change the location and time and look at it in a very simplistic manner.
Two people come into your yard refuses to leave and begin acting in a bizarre manner.
You call the police. After they arrive the police ask them to leave.
The two people refuse to leave and continue to act in a bizarre manner.
(A) Do the police give up and leave you to deal with two people.
(B) Do they increase their level of force and remove the two people.
I think you are assuming that anyone in a uniform is automatically going to be abusive.
That's a prejudice that can at times make the job almost impossible.
"(A) Do the police give up and leave you to deal with two people.
ReplyDelete(B) Do they increase their level of force and remove the two people."
And _shoot_ them? And _kill_ them? That was the way the guardsmen chose to increase their level of force. Bad choice.
"I think you are assuming that anyone in a uniform is automatically going to be abusive. That's a prejudice that can at times make the job almost impossible."
My observation of the behavior of uniformed force over time leads me to conclude that they may well become abusive and that I am powerless in the face of that abuse when it occurs. I'm not assuming they will automatically be abusive. I'm assuming abuse is definitely a possibility and that my powerlessness in that circumstance is sure.
Nothing I can do can make their job impossible, because, as you suggest, they can just "increase their level of force" and do that to any degree they deem necessary, including lethal force, to achieve their objective. My prejudices and expectations cannot make their job impossible. They make their own job more difficult because the fear of abuse at the hands of a uniformed gun results in an increasing unwillingness to cooperate with this kind of "round up the usual suspects"/"shoot first and ask questions later" entrenched, protected power.
I can't defend what the guardsmen did but I am attempting to explain the actions of a LEO.
ReplyDeleteMany have prejudices against LEOs and this clouds their perceptions.
Remember it's you who now represent the authorities and give power to the LEOs and in turn expect results.
Many people confuse force with abuse.
Use of force has changed much in the last 50 to 60 years.
An officer in the 40's to 50's would use a baton and strike you in the head, early 60's officers were taught to strike joints (knees, elbows)late 60's 70's they were trained to strike arms and legs avoiding joints, officers in 80's were taught to strike nerve motor points, 90's any strikes above nipples considered deadly force.
These actions were taken to reduce death and permanent injuries.
Police operate on a 1 + 1 theory of control. Imagine the levels of force on a 1 to 10 scale.
1 being lowest and 10 being deadly force.
Tons of factors go into what level is used but a LEO will always maintain at least one level above to maintain control.
It depends on the department but the Force Continuum goes something like this.
Presence, verbal commands, empty hand control, hard empty hand control, Taser, Chemical aerosol, baton, less than lethal, deadly force.
You are the police officer and you are confronting the two people in the yard.
Which level do you use?
Are you able to articulate these actions in your report?
Remember you will have to deal with the perception of the people in the crowd that's gathered.
What do you do?
"Many have prejudices against LEOs and this clouds their perceptions."
ReplyDeleteMany have prejudices against uniformed folks with guns because of their prior experiences.
"expect results"
Actually, I don't really expect much in the way of results. I know they'll _try_ to get results. That's really all I expect. What my expectation is of getting results from "LEOs" really has nothing to do with my basic fear of them and my shock over the killings at Kent State.
"What do you do?"
I'm not trained to do that job, would never in a million years want to do that job and have no idea what professionals are trained to do in dangerous situations. It's like asking me how I'd treat lymphoma or how I would build a bridge or how I would rescue someone from a burning building or from the bottom of a lake. I would advise the professionals in all these situations to do their jobs in a professional way without killing people. Innocent people. Innocent people who are just minding their own business going to class.
I remember Kent State all too well as I was a Junior in high school. Some of the kids shot weren't even part of the protest and none of them were armed. Were the protesting students wrong? Yes and no (one must look at the political atmosphere of the time). Were the members of the Guard wrong for shooting them? YES
ReplyDelete