Famous Celebrities that have served in the Military...

[DanG 1]

Quote

I agree there, but do you not agree that it took provocation? Who did the provoking?

Sure there was provoking. That doesn't mean that the provokers were at fault for what happened after that. The troops should have been better led, better trained, and shown restraint. Frankly, the military is often not the best at crowd control, that's not what soldiers (outside of MPs) are training to do. The infantry is trained to kill people and blow stuff up, and that's unfortunately what they did.

You can't blame the shooting on anybody except the shooters.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 220]

Quote

The job requirements of people who carry weapons for a living includes the ability to withstand
provoking.

Wendy P.

I concurr. I'm not defending the NG actions. I am arguing that the instigators, who, went there with the intention of getting a violent response, got what they were looking for and it is not comperable to the comment made regarding a woman being at fault by wearing a short skirt.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

Quote

I concurr. I'm not defending the NG actions. I am arguing that the instigators, who, went there with the intention of getting a violent response, got what they were looking for and it is not comperable to the comment made regarding a woman being at fault by wearing a short skirt.

Look at it this way: the woman wearing a short skirt may very well be wearing it to get a sexual reaction from men. She may even be wearing it to help her get laid. It doesn't mean she was asking for it when she gets raped. She's relying on the lgal and moral boundaries that exist in civilized society.

The Kent State instigators may have been looking for a violent response from the NG, but I very much doubt they thought anyone was going to get killed. They probably wanted the NG to shove them, arrest them, tear gas them, or maybe even beat them up. I doubt that any of them were trying to solicit gunfire. Just like the woman may have been trying to solicit a sexual reaction, she clearly didn't intend to solicit a rape.

We can argue motives all day long, but I don't think you can make a good argument that the protesters were in any way at fault when the NG started shooting into the crowd.

- Dan G

[shropshire 0]

As has been agreed, the NG fucked up - big time.

The students we in the wrong by throwing stones at the NG but their response with live ammunitions was totally disproportionate.

They should not have just stood and taken it (for too long anyway - but for some time anyway) - After all it's not like the 'kids' were throwing petrol bombs or shooting, where they? So why not stand behind shields for a while? No need to escalate the situation.

Most crowd control units would use non-lethal control techniques (Water cannon, Rubber Bullets, Shields and batons) - which in hind sight, at least should have been the way to go.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[winsor 236]

Quote

The job requirements of people who carry weapons for a living includes the ability to withstand
provoking.

Wendy P.

As I recall, a contingent of the 82nd Airborne was available - all of whom had been well trained on non-lethal crowd control.

The Governor, for reasons that had to do with money or political control, used the National Guard instead.

The Guardsmen who were deployed to Kent State came directly from a protracted and particularly ugly mine strike that got zip for national coverage.

The environment surrounding the Kent State uprising was not "Summer of Love," but "Days of Rage." The troops were sent there with raw nerves, amid reports of buildings being occupied and burned.

Issued live ammunition and deployed with fixed bayonets, the scene was set for what then occurred. Whether the first bang was the result of agents provocateur or an accidental discharge, the volleys that preceded the cease-fire order were a foregone conclusion.

In a sense, the same ill-training that had these people firing live ammo in the first place also helped to keep the casualties down. Well-trained marksmen using M-1 Garands would be expected to achieve 1 certified kill for every 1.3 rounds fired, or 51 dead and 16 wounded instead of 4 killed and 9 wounded for the 67 shots fired.

Then again, the well-trained troops they had on hand would not have been shooting in the first place. This, of course, is Wendy's point - one with which I wholeheartedly agree.


BSBD,

Winsor

[billvon 2,991]

> I am arguing that the instigators, who, went there with the intention
>of getting a violent response, got what they were looking for . . .

And that _is_ the same thinking. "That slut who went to the bar with the come-fuck-me skirt got exactly what she was looking for. What did she expect?" Now, you may truly believe that Allison Krause _wanted_ to be shot in the chest - but again, that's not much different than believing that that woman wanted to be raped.

[shropshire 0]

Excuse me if I'm mistaken .. but is it even legal to deploy troops on US soil? Or would it need special powers?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[quade 4]

Quote

Excuse me if I'm mistaken .. but is it even legal to deploy troops on US soil? Or would it need special powers?

If by "troops" you mean US military, then no, I don't believe it would have been legal at the time. I believe the Patriot Act has revised that however.

I believe National Guard troops would have been legal to quell civil unrest at the time though.

The National Guard didn't have the status then it did today.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DanG 1]

The National Guard has always been allowed to be deployed on US soil for things like this.

Federal troops, however, fall under the rules of Posse Comitatus, and cannot be deployed on US soil to respond to domestic issues. I'm not sure what, if any, corners of that rule have been carved away by the Patriot Act.

- Dan G

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

It also would not have happened had the protesters not started throwing objects at the troops. It is a pretty stupid thing to throw rocks at men armed with rifles.

The intent and intelligence of the protestors is completely irrelevant - they did not make the National Guard start shooting, they did not get anyone killed. The men who fired (at people who were mostly hundreds of yards away) were the only people present who were responsible for getting anyone killed.

To repeat myself, it's like saying women who dress provocatively are responsible for provoking their rapists.

That is a very poor analogy. Most women who are raped do nothing to provoke their assailant and do not want a confrontation of any kind.
The student protesters, on the other hand, did provoke their assailants and they wanted a confrontation.
The two situations are in not similar in any way other than unwarranted violence.
Do I think the NG was justified? Hell no. But no matter which way you spin the tale, the facts remain that the protester were actively and intentionally escalating the situation, the NG was ill trained and overly equipped, and innocent bystanders got killed.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The job requirements of people who carry weapons for a living includes the ability to withstand
provoking.

Wendy P.

Here here....... a PROFESSIONAL should be able to show professionalism at all times...... a thug will show his true nature.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

I concurr. I'm not defending the NG actions. I am arguing that the instigators, who, went there with the intention of getting a violent response, got what they were looking for and it is not comperable to the comment made regarding a woman being at fault by wearing a short skirt.

Look at it this way: the woman wearing a short skirt may very well be wearing it to get a sexual reaction from men. She may even be wearing it to help her get laid. It doesn't mean she was asking for it when she gets raped. She's relying on the lgal and moral boundaries that exist in civilized society.

The Kent State instigators may have been looking for a violent response from the NG, but I very much doubt they thought anyone was going to get killed. They probably wanted the NG to shove them, arrest them, tear gas them, or maybe even beat them up. I doubt that any of them were trying to solicit gunfire. Just like the woman may have been trying to solicit a sexual reaction, she clearly didn't intend to solicit a rape.

We can argue motives all day long, but I don't think you can make a good argument that the protesters were in any way at fault when the NG started shooting into the crowd.

Both sides share responsiblity for what happened, though most of it falls on the government. What happened was the end result of a chain of events. Remove any one of those "links" , the chain is broken, and most of the world never hears of Kent State.
You throw rocks at a man with a gun and you don't deserve to get shot. You should expect not to get shot. But you have to consider the possibility you just might get shot. It is a very stupid thing to do and, like a lot of other situations, innocent people die when stupid people do stupid things.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

Excuse me if I'm mistaken .. but is it even legal to deploy troops on US soil? Or would it need special powers?

If by "troops" you mean US military, then no, I don't believe it would have been legal at the time. I believe the Patriot Act has revised that however.

I believe National Guard troops would have been legal to quell civil unrest at the time though.

The National Guard didn't have the status then it did today.

Cheers mate.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 2,991]

> Most women who are raped do nothing to provoke their assailant and
> do not want a confrontation of any kind.

I have heard several people contend that women dress provocatively because they _want_ attention from the opposite sex. They want to be noticed, to be competed over and to be seen as desirable sex partners. They want to provoke a physical reaction in men through how they present themselves, a reaction that often leads to sex.

That does not mean that they want to be raped.

Likewise, many of the Kent State protesters wanted attention. They wanted to be noticed, they wanted to be seen as rebellious, and they wanted to generate enough controversy to be reported on by the media.

That does not mean that they wanted to be shot and killed.

The argument that the soldiers were unduly provoked, and therefore some of the responsibility rests with the protesters, is no better than the argument that the rapist was unduly provoked by a slutty woman. If you cannot control yourself well enough to avoid violence when provoked, you should not be in the National Guard (or picking up women in bars.)

[turtlespeed 220]

What illegal activity did the woman do that provoked the rape?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[winsor 236]

Quote

Excuse me if I'm mistaken .. but is it even legal to deploy troops on US soil? Or would it need special powers?

The legality of the issue is pretty much a function of who you ask.

During the War of Northern Agression, for example, the President pretty much threw the Constitution out the window to "preserve" a no-longer existant union.

Arguing the legality of the issue with someone dumb enough to field combat troops in a civil-unrest situation strikes me as an exercise in futility.


BSBD,

Winsor

[billvon 2,991]

>What illegal activity did the woman do that provoked the rape?

None. What illegal activity did Sandra Scheuer and William Schroeder do to provoke their own deaths?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

> Most women who are raped do nothing to provoke their assailant and
> do not want a confrontation of any kind.

I have heard several people contend that women dress provocatively because they _want_ attention from the opposite sex. They want to be noticed, to be competed over and to be seen as desirable sex partners. They want to provoke a physical reaction in men through how they present themselves, a reaction that often leads to sex.

That does not mean that they want to be raped.

Likewise, many of the Kent State protesters wanted attention. They wanted to be noticed, they wanted to be seen as rebellious, and they wanted to generate enough controversy to be reported on by the media.

That does not mean that they wanted to be shot and killed.

The argument that the soldiers were unduly provoked, and therefore some of the responsibility rests with the protesters, is no better than the argument that the rapist was unduly provoked by a slutty woman. If you cannot control yourself well enough to avoid violence when provoked, you should not be in the National Guard (or picking up women in bars.)

What violent act does a rape victim perform to provoke her attacker? Does she throw rocks at him?
I agree that an NG soldier should have a great deal of self restraint. The problem is, they didn't and that was the governments fault.
By the same token, if you can't hold a peaceful demonstration and get your point across without turning to violence, you shouldn't be demonstrating. The FACT remains, Bill, that those kids went there that day with the intention of creating havoc. They were looking for trouble, they found it, and it led DIRECTLY to people getting killed. Not in a round-a-bout way, not kinda or sorta, DIRECTLY, just as sure as if they had pulled the trigger themselves.
It is sad that people died, sadder still that some of them did nothing that day but stand in the wrong spot.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>What illegal activity did the woman do that provoked the rape?

None. What illegal activity did Sandra Scheuer and William Schroeder do to provoke their own deaths?

None. It was the illegal activities of the protesters that led to those innocents deaths.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 2,991]

>What violent act does a rape victim perform to provoke her attacker?

In many cases, rape is preceded by a violent attempt by the woman to stop the man's advances. This angle has been tried by many rapists to blame their victims. Fortunately it does not work. There is no excuse for rape, just as there is no excuse for firing into a crowd.

>I agree that an NG soldier should have a great deal of self restraint.

Agreed there.

> The FACT remains, Bill, that those kids went there that day with the
> intention of creating havoc.

Yes. And the National Guard fired into a crowd that was no threat to them to try to kill people. There is no defense for that. None at all. "They were throwing rocks" does not count when the Guard is 300 feet away from the people throwing rocks. "They threw rocks before that" is as lame an excuse as a rapist who claims that the rape victim kicked him and thus deserved the rape.

>They were looking for trouble, they found it, and it led DIRECTLY to
>people getting killed.

Nope. If you rape a woman, you are responsible for your crime. Period. It doesn't matter how you feel or what she did ten minutes ago.

If you fire into a crowd from 300 feet away to kill some protesters, you are responsible for their deaths. Period. No matter what they did ten minutes ago. No matter how angry you are.

[Amazon 7]

OR how someones "FRIENDS" want to justify their firing at unarmed civilians 40 years later so they can try to sleep at night

[turtlespeed 220]

I don't see how you can reach your conclusions logically. Be honest, Bill, if you picked up some rocks and threw them at some guys holding some guns, you HONESTLY would have NO IDEA whatsoever that you might get shot, or shot at?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 220]

Quote

OR how someones "FRIENDS" want to justify their firing at unarmed civilians 40 years later so they can try to sleep at night

Who's friends are those?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>What violent act does a rape victim perform to provoke her attacker?

In many cases, rape is preceded by a violent attempt by the woman to stop the man's advances. This angle has been tried by many rapists to blame their victims. Fortunately it does not work. There is no excuse for rape, just as there is no excuse for firing into a crowd.

>I agree that an NG soldier should have a great deal of self restraint.

Agreed there.

> The FACT remains, Bill, that those kids went there that day with the
> intention of creating havoc.

Yes. And the National Guard fired into a crowd that was no threat to them to try to kill people. There is no defense for that. None at all. "They were throwing rocks" does not count when the Guard is 300 feet away from the people throwing rocks. "They threw rocks before that" is as lame an excuse as a rapist who claims that the rape victim kicked him and thus deserved the rape.

>They were looking for trouble, they found it, and it led DIRECTLY to
>people getting killed.

Nope. If you rape a woman, you are responsible for your crime. Period. It doesn't matter how you feel or what she did ten minutes ago.

If you fire into a crowd from 300 feet away to kill some protesters, you are responsible for their deaths. Period. No matter what they did ten minutes ago. No matter how angry you are.

Sorry, Bill, but you are dead wrong on the one point we disagree on. The protesters went there to create violence. They would not have it any other way. Their acts caused the reaction, as wrong as it may have been, from the NG.
If I were a woman I would be insulted by your comparing a rape vistim to the protesters. THEY were acting in a manner that was not only illegal but was also intended to end with violence. A rape victim rarely, if ever, acts in a manner that is illegal to provoke the rape and her intentions sure as hell are not to incite violence.
Do you think rape victims intend to incite a violent reaction from their attacker? Because that is what you are saying when you compare them to the Kent State protesters.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kallend 2,027]

There is no excuse, NONE, for troops firing rifles into a crowd of unarmed civilians. It's the sort of thing that happened in occupied Europe in 1944 and that we rightly condemned.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.