Political Slant of Most US Universities

[weemadando]

Please remove yourself from your soap box and place yourself in the shoes of the guards. You've been tormented for over 50 hours straight by people "only" armed with rocks, bricks, BAGS OF SHIT, and molotov cocktails. Suddenly, you're a member of a group of roughly 20 (yes, that's all that were involved in the actual massacre), cut off from support (which is halfway across campus), surrounded by screaming students who might not hesitate to beat you to a pulp, and CERTINLY don't hesitate to throw heavy objects at you. Then, a student approaches your group, one hand behind hit back like he's holding a gun (it turned out he had a brick) and screaming "shoot me, motherfuckers!" Attempts to pacify people like this in the past few days have mostly ended in violence, and if the students choose to attack your group, thye have enough that they WILL overrun you.
What do you do, Patrick?

This is all reminding me of the fuckers in Genoa last year. The cop who is trapped in the back of a van with a masked rioter about to throw a fire extinguisher at him shoots the rioter. "Oh no! Brutal repression by the police! It was unneccessary!" People forget that law enforcement officers have the right to defend themselves if they feel threatened. Its a priviledge provided by their position.

Also look at the september 11 protests (year 2000, not THAT september 11) in Melbourne. People are complaining of police brutality. Yes, the riot police were going hard, but only because they were under constant bombardment from the fucking arsehole demonstrators.

[Patrick Degan]

Becuase getting stoned can kill, even in riot gear. And frankly, the hippies out to have known better than to stone armed soldiers.

Seems there's just a little confusion as to the timeline of events.

The rock-pelting incidents took place on the night before the actual riot and were directed at firemen attempting to put out the blaze in the ROTC office. The National Guard troopers did not actually arrive on campus until the morning of May 4th and performed their drill within proximity of the political rally.

The participants in the rally didn't even have rocks. The only "arms" they used were the NG's own tear-gas cannisters.

Only two of the students killed were actually part of the rally. The other two victims were changing classes and were hit by stray bullets.

So, at the end of the day, we don't even have the "rock-pelting threat" justification for the use of deadly force in a nonlethal situation and in which two of the four deaths were those of students who weren't even in the crowd.

http://allsands.com/History/Events/kent ... tez_gn.htm

But let me guess, the two students proceeding to their classes were doing so in an aggressive and threatening manner.

[Patrick Degan]

As a matter of fact, I have. And what does that have to do with anything, fuckwit?

Then you know stoning is potentially fatal.

So I'm entitled to shoot somebody tossing rocks at me. I can tell you right off what that would get me: a murder conviction. That's the law.

As for Randy Weaver and co., I will remind you that Kevin Harris opened fire first and hit one of the Federal marshals, who had identified himself as a U.S. Marshal.

Wrong. The US Marshals identified themselves by opening fire on and killing
the Weaver's dog. You, never, ever shoot someones dog. To me, that is
a shootable offense.[/quote]

Wrong. The first marshal broke cover and shouted "U.S. Marshal" in accordance with the regulations. And whether you feel that shooting somebody's dog is a shootable offense is immaterial. The law says otherwise. You have no argument.

On the other hand, if you shoot a police dog, you are now guilty of
the death of an police officer. So don't whine about how it's "only
a dog."

Except the dog in question was not a "police officer" in any way, shape, or form. You still have no argument.

[Kuja]

Seems there's just a little confusion as to the timeline of events.

The rock-pelting incidents took place on the night before the actual riot and were directed at firemen attempting to put out the blaze in the ROTC office. The National Guard troopers did not actually arrive on campus until the morning of May 4th and performed their drill within proximity of the political rally.

Thank you for proving that you have done NO research whatsoever. The Guard was already in Kent by mid-day May 2nd.

The participants in the rally didn't even have rocks. The only "arms" they used were the NG's own tear-gas cannisters.

THAT day, they weren't throwing things. The 50-odd hours BEFORE, they were throwing things. And when the Guard got trapped, they started throwing things.

Only two of the students killed were actually part of the rally. The other two victims were changing classes and were hit by stray bullets.

Yes, this is true, and it's way the massacre was so sad. However, that does not change the fact that the Guard felt threatened and beleived they had no other choice.

So, at the end of the day, we don't even have the "rock-pelting threat" justification for the use of deadly force in a nonlethal situation and in which two of the four deaths were those of students who weren't even in the crowd.

See above.

http://allsands.com/History/Events/kent ... tez_gn.htm

This website isn't very comprehensive. The video and four-page essay I read about May 4 were.

But let me guess, the two students proceeding to their classes were doing so in an aggressive and threatening manner.

Again, get off your soap box.

[Patrick Degan]

Please remove yourself from your soap box and place yourself in the shoes of the guards. You've been tormented for over 50 hours straight by people "only" armed with rocks, bricks, BAGS OF SHIT, and molotov cocktails. Suddenly, you're a member of a group of roughly 20 (yes, that's all that were involved in the actual massacre), cut off from support (which is halfway across campus), surrounded by screaming students who might not hesitate to beat you to a pulp, and CERTINLY don't hesitate to throw heavy objects at you. Then, a student approaches your group, one hand behind hit back like he's holding a gun (it turned out he had a brick) and screaming "shoot me, motherfuckers!" Attempts to pacify people like this in the past few days have mostly ended in violence, and if the students choose to attack your group, thye have enough that they WILL overrun you.
What do you do, Patrick?

I do not send my men out to provoke a confrontation, which was not imminent on the morning in question. I do not risk said confrontation by engaging in an elaborate display of force. The entire idea is to defuse tensions, not add to them. This is where command discretion comes into play.

[Joe]

Wrong. The first marshal broke cover and shouted "U.S. Marshal" in accordance with the regulations. And whether you feel that shooting somebody's dog is a shootable offense is immaterial. The law says otherwise. You have no argument.

What, if you destroy the property of someone (the dog) that someone isn't entitled to take action against you, you who have shown that you are a clear threat to the life and property of the person in question? Doubtful. If some asshole were to shoot your dog, wouldn't you be correct to rationalize that this person is openly hostile towards you?

[Kuja]

Please remove yourself from your soap box and place yourself in the shoes of the guards. You've been tormented for over 50 hours straight by people "only" armed with rocks, bricks, BAGS OF SHIT, and molotov cocktails. Suddenly, you're a member of a group of roughly 20 (yes, that's all that were involved in the actual massacre), cut off from support (which is halfway across campus), surrounded by screaming students who might not hesitate to beat you to a pulp, and CERTINLY don't hesitate to throw heavy objects at you. Then, a student approaches your group, one hand behind hit back like he's holding a gun (it turned out he had a brick) and screaming "shoot me, motherfuckers!" Attempts to pacify people like this in the past few days have mostly ended in violence, and if the students choose to attack your group, thye have enough that they WILL overrun you.
What do you do, Patrick?

I do not send my men out to provoke a confrontation, which was not imminent on the morning in question. I do not risk said confrontation by engaging in an elaborate display of force. The entire idea is to defuse tensions, not add to them. This is where command discretion comes into play.

In other words, you have no answer for me. Concession Accepted.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

On the topic of political leanings in universities, you must be joking: Your typical university campus has to be the most unipartisan place on Earth. Surveys of professors show that in many universities, the vast majority of professors are liberal, with the precentage of conservative professors in the single digits.

[Patrick Degan]

The participants in the rally didn't even have rocks. The only "arms" they used were the NG's own tear-gas cannisters.

THAT day, they weren't throwing things. The 50-odd hours BEFORE, they were throwing things. And when the Guard got trapped, they started throwing things.

http://www.spectacle.org/595/kent.html
The units that responded were ill-trained and came right from riot duty elsewhere; they hadn't had much sleep. The first day, there was some brutality; the Guard bayonetted two men, one a disabled veteran, who had cursed or yelled at them from cars. The following day, May 4th, the Guard, commanded with an amazing lack of military judgment, marched down a hill, to a field in the middle of angry demonstrators, then back up again. Seconds before they would have passed around the corner of a large building, and out of sight of the crowd, many of the Guardsmen wheeled and fired directly into the students, hitting thirteen, killing four of them, pulling the trigger over and over, for thirteen seconds. (Count out loud--one Mississippi, two Mississippi, to see how long this is.) Guardsmen--none of whom were later punished, civilly, administratively, or criminally--admitted firing at specific unarmed targets; one man shot a demonstrator who was giving him the finger. The closest student shot was fully sixty feet away; all but one were more than 100 feet away; all but two were more than 200 feet away. One of the dead was 255 feet away; the rest were 300 to 400 feet away. The most distant student shot was more than 700 feet from the Guardsmen.

Some rocks had been thrown, and some tear gas canisters fired by the Guard had been hurled back, but (though some of the Guardsmen certainly must know the truth) no-one has ever been able to establish why the Guard fired when they were seconds away from safety around the corner of the building. None had been injured worse than a minor bruise, no demonstrators were armed, there was simply nothing threatening them that justified an armed and murderous response. In addition to the demonstrators, none of whom was closer than sixty feet, the campus was full of onlookers and students on their way to class; two of the four dead fell in this category. Most Guardsmen later testified that they turned and fired because everyone else was. There was an attempt to blame a mysterious sniper, of whom no trace was ever found; there was no evidence, on the ground, on still photographs or a film, of a shot fired by anyone but the Guardsmen. One officer is seen in many of the photographs, out in front, pointing a pistol; one possibility is that he fired first, causing the others, ahead of him, to turn and fire. Or (as some witnesses testified) he or another officer may have given an order to fire. It is indisputable that the Guardsmen were not in any immediate physical danger when they fired; the crowd was not pursuing them; they were seconds away from being out of sight of the demonstration

In short, you should try getting off your own soapbox, Iggy.

[Patrick Degan]

I do not send my men out to provoke a confrontation, which was not imminent on the morning in question. I do not risk said confrontation by engaging in an elaborate display of force. The entire idea is to defuse tensions, not add to them. This is where command discretion comes into play.

In other words, you have no answer for me. Concession Accepted.

I'm not responsible for your fantasies, Iggy. And don't try pulling that "concession accepted" bullshit with me.

[Patrick Degan]

Wrong. The first marshal broke cover and shouted "U.S. Marshal" in accordance with the regulations. And whether you feel that shooting somebody's dog is a shootable offense is immaterial. The law says otherwise. You have no argument.

What, if you destroy the property of someone (the dog) that someone isn't entitled to take action against you, you who have shown that you are a clear threat to the life and property of the person in question? Doubtful. If some asshole were to shoot your dog, wouldn't you be correct to rationalize that this person is openly hostile towards you?

If that's what you believe, Durran, I invite you to attempt the experiment of shooting someone who shoots your dog sometime and see how well you fare in a court of law afterward.

[Kuja]

The participants in the rally didn't even have rocks. The only "arms" they used were the NG's own tear-gas cannisters.

THAT day, they weren't throwing things. The 50-odd hours BEFORE, they were throwing things. And when the Guard got trapped, they started throwing things.

http://www.spectacle.org/595/kent.html
The units that responded were ill-trained and came right from riot duty elsewhere; they hadn't had much sleep. The first day, there was some brutality; the Guard bayonetted two men, one a disabled veteran, who had cursed or yelled at them from cars. The following day, May 4th, the Guard, commanded with an amazing lack of military judgment, marched down a hill, to a field in the middle of angry demonstrators, then back up again. Seconds before they would have passed around the corner of a large building, and out of sight of the crowd, many of the Guardsmen wheeled and fired directly into the students, hitting thirteen, killing four of them, pulling the trigger over and over, for thirteen seconds. (Count out loud--one Mississippi, two Mississippi, to see how long this is.) Guardsmen--none of whom were later punished, civilly, administratively, or criminally--admitted firing at specific unarmed targets; one man shot a demonstrator who was giving him the finger. The closest student shot was fully sixty feet away; all but one were more than 100 feet away; all but two were more than 200 feet away. One of the dead was 255 feet away; the rest were 300 to 400 feet away. The most distant student shot was more than 700 feet from the Guardsmen.

Some rocks had been thrown, and some tear gas canisters fired by the Guard had been hurled back, but (though some of the Guardsmen certainly must know the truth) no-one has ever been able to establish why the Guard fired when they were seconds away from safety around the corner of the building. None had been injured worse than a minor bruise, no demonstrators were armed, there was simply nothing threatening them that justified an armed and murderous response. In addition to the demonstrators, none of whom was closer than sixty feet, the campus was full of onlookers and students on their way to class; two of the four dead fell in this category. Most Guardsmen later testified that they turned and fired because everyone else was. There was an attempt to blame a mysterious sniper, of whom no trace was ever found; there was no evidence, on the ground, on still photographs or a film, of a shot fired by anyone but the Guardsmen. One officer is seen in many of the photographs, out in front, pointing a pistol; one possibility is that he fired first, causing the others, ahead of him, to turn and fire. Or (as some witnesses testified) he or another officer may have given an order to fire. It is indisputable that the Guardsmen were not in any immediate physical danger when they fired; the crowd was not pursuing them; they were seconds away from being out of sight of the demonstration

In short, you should try getting off your own soapbox, Iggy.

Sorry Pat, but this site is fucked six ways from Sunday. I've watched the former students AND Guards give testimony about the day. I've HEARD the guard who had the pistol admit he fired first, and on later reflection, beleived he was wrong to do so. Still doesn't change the circumstances of the moment. And I've heard from THREE former students who say that the crowd was following the Guards and throwing stuff. I believe my sources override yours.

[Kuja]

I do not send my men out to provoke a confrontation, which was not imminent on the morning in question. I do not risk said confrontation by engaging in an elaborate display of force. The entire idea is to defuse tensions, not add to them. This is where command discretion comes into play.

In other words, you have no answer for me. Concession Accepted.

I'm not responsible for your fantasies, Iggy. And don't try pulling that "concession accepted" bullshit with me.

I'm not fantasizing, it's what happened.

And if you don't want to hear 'Concession Accepted', answer the question, don't dodge it.

[Patrick Degan]

Sorry Pat, but this site is fucked six ways from Sunday. I've watched the former students AND Guards give testimony about the day. I've HEARD the guard who had the pistol admit he fired first, and on later reflection, beleived he was wrong to do so. Still doesn't change the circumstances of the moment. And I've heard from THREE former students who say that the crowd was following the Guards and throwing stuff. I believe my sources override yours.

You may believe what you like. The facts of the matter say otherwise.

Again, get off your own soapbox.

[Kuja]

Sorry Pat, but this site is fucked six ways from Sunday. I've watched the former students AND Guards give testimony about the day. I've HEARD the guard who had the pistol admit he fired first, and on later reflection, beleived he was wrong to do so. Still doesn't change the circumstances of the moment. And I've heard from THREE former students who say that the crowd was following the Guards and throwing stuff. I believe my sources override yours.

You may believe what you like. The facts of the matter say otherwise.

Again, get off your own soapbox.

Facts of the matter say otherwise, and are INCORRECT.

[Joe]

Wrong. The first marshal broke cover and shouted "U.S. Marshal" in accordance with the regulations. And whether you feel that shooting somebody's dog is a shootable offense is immaterial. The law says otherwise. You have no argument.

What, if you destroy the property of someone (the dog) that someone isn't entitled to take action against you, you who have shown that you are a clear threat to the life and property of the person in question? Doubtful. If some asshole were to shoot your dog, wouldn't you be correct to rationalize that this person is openly hostile towards you?

If that's what you believe, Durran, I invite you to attempt the experiment of shooting someone who shoots your dog sometime and see how well you fare in a court of law afterward.

I suppose I should have been more clear; if you CATCH someone in the act or murdering your dog, a piece of your property, don't you have every reason to believe that this person is a threat to you? Would not a court of law see this? What are you supposed to do to retaliate (assuming the asshole tries to run away and you don't know who he is)?

[Patrick Degan]

I'm not fantasizing, it's what happened. And if you don't want to hear 'Concession Accepted', answer the question, don't dodge it.

Oh, but I did answer the question. The answer just didn't suit you. The facts of the matter indicate that marching the guardsmen toward the rally was stupid, and they indicate that sufficent distance seperated the two parties, one of which was already in retreat from the area. The option of firing overhead existed, or firing into the ground before the crowd. One of the Guardsmen who spoke on the video you cite as your evidence expressed that he didn't think he was justified in opening fire into the crowd.

Your beliefs about the matter do not alter the facts of the case.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I suppose I should have been more clear; if you CATCH someone in the act or murdering your dog, a piece of your property, don't you have every reason to believe that this person is a threat to you? Would not a court of law see this? What are you supposed to do to retaliate (assuming the asshole tries to run away and you don't know who he is)?

No, you would not always have the right to shoot this person. You can only use deadly force if you are in imminent danger. You may be able to make the case to a jury, that you were threatened, but it would not be an ironclad argument.

If the guy runs away after shooting your dog, and you kill him. You are going to jail for a long time.

If he runs at you, then you will probably walk.

[Kuja]

I'm not fantasizing, it's what happened. And if you don't want to hear 'Concession Accepted', answer the question, don't dodge it.

Oh, but I did answer the question. The answer just didn't suit you. The facts of the matter indicate that marching the guardsmen toward the rally was stupid, and they indicate that sufficent distance seperated the two parties, one of which was already in retreat from the area. The option of firing overhead existed, or firing into the ground before the crowd. One of the Guardsmen who spoke on the video you cite as your evidence expressed that he didn't think he was justified in opening fire into the crowd.

Your beliefs about the matter do not alter the facts of the case.

You did NOT answer my question. I asked: if you were a Guardsmen, on the spot, in the middle of this adverse situation, what would you do?

You gave me a strategic textbook-style answer that COMPLETELY dodged the question.

[Patrick Degan]

What, if you destroy the property of someone (the dog) that someone isn't entitled to take action against you, you who have shown that you are a clear threat to the life and property of the person in question? Doubtful. If some asshole were to shoot your dog, wouldn't you be correct to rationalize that this person is openly hostile towards you?

If that's what you believe, Durran, I invite you to attempt the experiment of shooting someone who shoots your dog sometime and see how well you fare in a court of law afterward.

I suppose I should have been more clear; if you CATCH someone in the act or murdering your dog, a piece of your property, don't you have every reason to believe that this person is a threat to you? Would not a court of law see this? What are you supposed to do to retaliate (assuming the asshole tries to run away and you don't know who he is)?

The law is very specific on when deadly force is applicable and under what circumstances. And in a situation where someone is running away from you, you are not legally entitled to shoot him. If you can retreat from a threat in safety, then the deadly force situation does not apply. And if you go ahead and shoot to kill anyway, you are up for a charge of murder.

That is the law.

[Darth Wong]

I suppose I should have been more clear; if you CATCH someone in the act or murdering your dog, a piece of your property, don't you have every reason to believe that this person is a threat to you? Would not a court of law see this? What are you supposed to do to retaliate (assuming the asshole tries to run away and you don't know who he is)?

Actually, the notion that property trespass constitutes an automatic self-defense situation is a uniquely American absurdity. It is an absolutely ludicrous logical fallacy to say that if someone has shown disregard for your property, he must be about to murder you. And whether you like it or not, that is precisely the "reasoning" behind the American notion that trespass constitutes automatic self-defense.

In general, American law treats property rights as equal to or perhaps even superior to life rights. Witness the prison terms handed out for manslaughter vs armed robbery.

I don't like dog-killers. They're assholes, and I think they should have their hands cut off so they can't fire a gun any more. However, that's based on anger at the notion of dog-killing, not any asinine belief that dog-killing should be treated as a precursor to an attempt on your life.

[Darth Wong]

You did NOT answer my question. I asked: if you were a Guardsmen, on the spot, in the middle of this adverse situation, what would you do?

I don't mean to speak for Patrick, but shooting at the ground would be the first and most obvious choice here. I don't know about you, but I think that would make me think twice. He already mentioned it as an option, along with simply moving back. Why use lethal force as a first option?

[Kuja]

You did NOT answer my question. I asked: if you were a Guardsmen, on the spot, in the middle of this adverse situation, what would you do?

I don't mean to speak for Patrick, but shooting at the ground would be the first and most obvious choice here. He already mentioned it as an option, along with simply moving back. Why use lethal force as a first option?

Because anything short of it has been tried in the past two days and failed to relieve the abuse of the Guardsmen.

[Joe]

When I made my first post about dog-killing I meant to say that it should be OK to kill someone who shot your dog if it's very clear that that person is a threat to you. But I was unclear on this point, so I'll concede.

[Patrick Degan]

You did NOT answer my question. I asked: if you were a Guardsmen, on the spot, in the middle of this adverse situation, what would you do? You gave me a strategic textbook-style answer that COMPLETELY dodged the question.

I WAIT for the order of command. I do not simply decide on my own to start shooting. And even then, if the situation does not actually warrant deadly force, I do not carry out an order to open fire on civilians. Or are you not acquainted with the provisos of military law which do require officers and no-ranks to apply some degree of intelligence and disregard illegal or immoral orders if they are given to you?