Political Slant of Most US Universities

OT: anything goes!

Moderator: Edi

Most Universities in the US tend to lean in which direction?

Poll ended at 2002-11-27 06:09pm

They lean to the left, toward liberalism.
23
74%
They lean to the right, toward conservatism.
2
6%
Most of them are right down the center.
6
19%
 
Total votes: 31

User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

IG-88E wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: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.
Interesting argument. So the Guardsmen did it not out of self-defense (since the crowd was unarmed and more than 60 feet away at the time) but simply to "relieve the abuse?"

I was not aware that eliminating non-lethal harassment and abuse was a valid reason to open fire on civilians.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Kuja
The Dark Messenger
Posts: 19322
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:05am
Location: AZ

Post by Kuja »

Patrick Degan wrote:
IG-88E wrote: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.
You would NEVER fire on civvies? Thank you for giving me a straight answer, but are you serious? Even if they would gladly hack you to death?
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?
Yes, I am. However, It does not come into play here because no officer gave a specific order to fire.
Image
JADAFETWA
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

IG-88E wrote:You would NEVER fire on civvies? Thank you for giving me a straight answer, but are you serious? Even if they would gladly hack you to death?
With what? None of the crowd was armed with anything bigger than rocks and bottles.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Post by Stormbringer »

Darth Wong wrote:
IG-88E wrote:You would NEVER fire on civvies? Thank you for giving me a straight answer, but are you serious? Even if they would gladly hack you to death?
With what? None of the crowd was armed with anything bigger than rocks and bottles.
Fine so they bludgeon you to death with rocks instead.
Image
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:With what? None of the crowd was armed with anything bigger than rocks and bottles.
Fine so they bludgeon you to death with rocks instead.
From 60-300 feet away? You are still presuming an immediate threat to life and limb which was simply not present. There is no evidence that the crowd was about to kill anyone. Civil disobedience such as rock-throwing, car overturning, etc. does not necessarily equal murderous intent, never mind a legitimate threat, particular given the tactical situation where the guardsmen were separated from the crowd by considerable distance and could have withdrawn safely.

Mind you, I suppose that after years of Israelis and their apologist brigade telling people that rock-throwing demonstrations are automatic lethal force situations, people who subscribe to that mentality have no choice but to apply it even against their own countrymen.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Kuja
The Dark Messenger
Posts: 19322
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:05am
Location: AZ

Post by Kuja »

Wong, you're just not seeing how tense the situation was. A brick, even if you're wearing a helmet, can do some damage. The Guards WERE afraid of those students, and had their fears come true, the students WOULD have wiped the floor with the 20 or so guards.
Image
JADAFETWA
User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Post by Stormbringer »

Darth Wong wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:With what? None of the crowd was armed with anything bigger than rocks and bottles.
Fine so they bludgeon you to death with rocks instead.
From 60-300 feet away? You are still presuming an immediate threat to life and limb which was simply not present. There is no evidence that the crowd was about to kill anyone. Civil disobedience such as rock-throwing, car overturning, etc. does not necessarily equal murderous intent, never mind a legitimate threat, particular given the tactical situation where the guardsmen were separated from the crowd by considerable distance and could have withdrawn safely.

Mind you, I suppose that after years of Israelis and their apologist brigade telling people that rock-throwing demonstrations are automatic lethal force situations, people who subscribe to that mentality have no choice but to apply it even against their own countrymen.
It don't think it's an automatically lethal situation. I think tenesions were high and things got out control. It was a situation were it cold become lethal and they shot because their nerves were frayed.
Image
User avatar
Uraniun235
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13772
Joined: 2002-09-12 12:47am
Location: OREGON
Contact:

Post by Uraniun235 »

You are still presuming an immediate threat to life and limb which was simply not present.
From an objective viewpoint, yes, but these are very young adults that haven't recieved the best of training and have seen little if any action. They were probably scared to the point of not thinking rationally.
User avatar
Kuja
The Dark Messenger
Posts: 19322
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:05am
Location: AZ

Post by Kuja »

Stormbringer wrote:It don't think it's an automatically lethal situation. I think tenesions were high and things got out control. It was a situation were it cold become lethal and they shot because their nerves were frayed.
Which DOES NOT make it right, but does explain that they're all human.
Image
JADAFETWA
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

IG-88E wrote:Facts of the matter say otherwise, and are INCORRECT.
The facts are incorrect?

That's a, shall we say, unique way to view the matter.
User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Post by Stormbringer »

IG-88E wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:It don't think it's an automatically lethal situation. I think tenesions were high and things got out control. It was a situation were it cold become lethal and they shot because their nerves were frayed.
Which DOES NOT make it right, but does explain that they're all human.
I didn't say it did. I merely pointed out that it's a dumb thing for those students to do. They pushed heavily armed troops (they could have killed those troopers) and that was the result. Dumb moves on both sides wound up with people dead.
Image
User avatar
Kuja
The Dark Messenger
Posts: 19322
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:05am
Location: AZ

Post by Kuja »

Patrick Degan wrote:
IG-88E wrote:Facts of the matter say otherwise, and are INCORRECT.
The facts are incorrect?

That's a, shall we say, unique way to view the matter.
Sorry, I should clarify: the 'facts' from the sites you are looking at are incorrect.
Image
JADAFETWA
User avatar
Kuja
The Dark Messenger
Posts: 19322
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:05am
Location: AZ

Post by Kuja »

Stormbringer wrote:
IG-88E wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:It don't think it's an automatically lethal situation. I think tenesions were high and things got out control. It was a situation were it cold become lethal and they shot because their nerves were frayed.
Which DOES NOT make it right, but does explain that they're all human.
I didn't say it did. I merely pointed out that it's a dumb thing for those students to do. They pushed heavily armed troops (they could have killed those troopers) and that was the result. Dumb moves on both sides wound up with people dead.
I know. I was trying to add to your point a bit.
Image
JADAFETWA
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

IG-88E wrote:You would NEVER fire on civvies? Thank you for giving me a straight answer, but are you serious? Even if they would gladly hack you to death?
You are being simply ridiculous, Iggy. Nothing that was going on in the situation on the Kent St. campus even remotely amounted to people about to be hacked to death. Now you're falling upon hyperbole to justify your position.
Patrick Degan wrote: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?
Yes, I am. However, It does not come into play here because no officer gave a specific order to fire.
In which case, I have no justification to decide upon my own to open fire on civilians in a nonlethal situation.
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

IG-88E wrote:Sorry, I should clarify: the 'facts' from the sites you are looking at are incorrect.
Oh really? You mean, the timeline of events is incorrect? The distance seperating the two sides in incorrect? The fact that nobody gave a command to fire is incorrect?

Again, a very "unique" way of viewing the matter.
User avatar
Kuja
The Dark Messenger
Posts: 19322
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:05am
Location: AZ

Post by Kuja »

Patrick Degan wrote: You are being simply ridiculous, Iggy. Nothing that was going on in the situation on the Kent St. campus even remotely amounted to people about to be hacked to death. Now you're falling upon hyperbole to justify your position.
Urk, once again I need to clarify: I'm not talking about KSU right here, but in general. Sorry.
In which case, I have no justification to decide upon my own to open fire on civilians in a nonlethal situation.
You're speaking in retrospect. That's not what I'm asking.
Oh really? You mean, the timeline of events is incorrect? The distance seperating the two sides in incorrect? The fact that nobody gave a command to fire is incorrect?

Again, a very "unique" way of viewing the matter.
You said the Guard showed up on May 4. That in itself throws the quality of your website source out the window.

And facts can be reported incorrectly or left out, which is what your webiste source is doing.
Image
JADAFETWA
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

IG-88E wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote: You are being simply ridiculous, Iggy. Nothing that was going on in the situation on the Kent St. campus even remotely amounted to people about to be hacked to death. Now you're falling upon hyperbole to justify your position.
Urk, once again I need to clarify: I'm not talking about KSU right here, but in general. Sorry.
You've been basing your entire position on what the Guardsmen faced. Now you're trying to expand the case ever outward to include any "what if" scenario you wish.
In which case, I have no justification to decide upon my own to open fire on civilians in a nonlethal situation.
You're speaking in retrospect. That's not what I'm asking.
Then what are you asking, specifically? Does one have the right to respond to rock-pelting with bullets?
You said the Guard showed up on May 4. That in itself throws the quality of your website source out the window. And facts can be reported incorrectly or left out, which is what your webiste source is doing.
Concerned students came into downtown Kent to offer their time and services with cleanup efforts. While many shop owners appreciated this gesture, others were demanding an end to the violence that caused the damage. Kent's mayor agreed that some decisive action was necessary, and ordered a curfew until further notice. The stage was now being set for a tragic confrontation.


Angered by the city's sudden curfew, students once again looted downtown Kent. In response to this action, the mayor contacted Ohio governor James Rhodes, asking for state-level assistance in dealing with the violence. Rhodes, a political conservative, ordered a division of National Guardsmen into Kent, ostensibly to restore peace in the downtown district, not the campus itself. These Guardsmen were already involved with a volatile strike in Akron, and were not anxious to go into yet another dangerous situation. Some of the Guardsmen were the same age as the protestors, and shared their views on the Cambodian situation.


Meanwhile, the campus itself was faced with a crisis. Several students had set fire to the ROTC building on campus, for unknown reasons. While attempting to extiguish the fire, several Kent firemen and police officers were pelted with rocks and other projectiles by those standing near the fire. Again, a call for action went out. The National Guard entered the campus for the first time, and set up camp directly on campus.

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

A half-point to you on one aspect: my reading of the timeline was in error. The website whose credibility you attack does say that the Guardsmen arrived on the campus the night of May 3rd, while the ROTC building was on fire. That misinterpretation is my fault.

But I notice that you didn't even bother to check the source yourself to make your argument but simply dismissed it wholesale. You also arbitrarily dismissed the other website and apparently just lumped the two together in doing so —again without actually bothering to examine the evidence for yourself. You do not present countervailing evidence to back your case but just engage in attacking the messenger.

If that's the best you can do, then you have no argument.
User avatar
Kuja
The Dark Messenger
Posts: 19322
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:05am
Location: AZ

Post by Kuja »

Patrick Degan wrote: You've been basing your entire position on what the Guardsmen faced. Now you're trying to expand the case ever outward to include any "what if" scenario you wish.
Sorry. you made a statement and I rected to it.
Then what are you asking, specifically? Does one have the right to respond to rock-pelting with bullets?
I'm asking what decision you would have made were you a guardsman in this situation.
A half-point to you on one aspect: my reading of the timeline was in error. The website whose credibility you attack does say that the Guardsmen arrived on the campus the night of May 3rd, while the ROTC building was on fire. That misinterpretation is my fault.
STILL INCORRECT. The riot downtown took place May 1. The guard were there the next day.
But I notice that you didn't even bother to check the source yourself to make your argument but simply dismissed it wholesale. You also arbitrarily dismissed the other website and apparently just lumped the two together in doing so —again without actually bothering to examine the evidence for yourself. You do not present countervailing evidence to back your case but just engage in attacking the messenger.
I DID check both. The fact that they are flawed is not my fault. I've seen the people invovled. I've stood on the spot where the shots were fired. I've walked my way through a re-enactment. That's enough evidence for me.
If that's the best you can do, then you have no argument.
Get your facts straight, THEN we'll have an argument.
Image
JADAFETWA
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

IG-88E wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:A half-point to you on one aspect: my reading of the timeline was in error. The website whose credibility you attack does say that the Guardsmen arrived on the campus the night of May 3rd, while the ROTC building was on fire. That misinterpretation is my fault.
STILL INCORRECT. The riot downtown took place May 1. The guard were there the next day.
Except we're not talking about the May 1st riot in downtown Kent. We're talking about the May 4th campus shooting. The one event does not even remotely justify the other.

And in any case, the Guard didn't arrive on the campus —the bone of contention you insisted upon staking your attack upon— until the night of May 3rd.
I DID check both. The fact that they are flawed is not my fault. I've seen the people invovled. I've stood on the spot where the shots were fired. I've walked my way through a re-enactment. That's enough evidence for me.
Evidence none of the rest of us can examine in this thread. How very convenient for you. No, you didn't check the websites; elsewise you'd have cited just where they were flawed. You simply engage in attacking the messenger.
Patrick Degan wrote:If that's the best you can do, then you have no argument.
Get your facts straight, THEN we'll have an argument.
I've got my facts straight. It's you who refuses to back your position with solid countervailing evidence beyond "I've talked to somebody/saw them on TV. I've walked on the campus".

That, to put it politely, is hearsay bullshit.
User avatar
Wicked Pilot
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 8972
Joined: 2002-07-05 05:45pm

Post by Wicked Pilot »

If I was the officer in charge that day, I'd have my men unload a few rounds into the air. There's nothing like gunshots to send people running in the other direction.


As to the origional topic of this thread, I'd say that in my neck of the woods, people are extremely conservative. Then again my neck of the woods is deep south rural. On the whole I'd have to say it's pretty middle of the road. Sure you see people at places like Berkely and all their socialist bullshit, but for ever Berkely you have a Bob Jones. It's the left-wingers that usually get the news coverage.
The most basic assumption about the world is that it does not contradict itself.
weemadando
SMAKIBBFB
Posts: 19195
Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
Contact:

Post by weemadando »

Look, I'm going to address two points here:

1- Shooting of the dog. The ATF agents were within their rights to be shooting the dog. If an animal was looking like it would a) compromise the operation or b) attack one of the officers, then they have the right to shoot it. From what I understand of the circumstances the shooting the dog though arguably not a neccessity was certainly a decision made well, based on available information. Any animal that has been trained as a guarddog or similar is classed as an offensive weapon. It would be the same as if someone had pulled a gun on the officers. They have the right to fire if they feel that their lives are threatened. You might say: what threat is a dog to a group of officers in body armour? Should that dog bark, it would alert the occupants of the house before the officers are in position, thus opening them up for an attack. Also, a dog can still cause you a lot of pain and hassles even IF you are in body armour.

As such, the shooting of the dog was justified. Don't confuse this with someone shooting your dog with a rifle for the hell of it. This was a warranted raid situation and the dog presented a clear and present danger to the safety of the officers.

2- Shooting of the students. Complete and utter fuck up. Why the hell do you shoot at students armed with improvised weapons when they are still 20m away. Yes, the guardsmen were probably scared, but it is one of their responsibilities in such a situation to maintain peace and order. Remaining calm and not shooting at people who are not an immediate mortal threat are parts of this. Had the university been under martial law and the guardsmen ordered the students to stop, issued a warning of the use of deadly force, then fired, I wouldn't have a problem. As is, it appears that they panicked and fired into a crowd of protesting students. Wildly fired even seeing as people not even in this "mob" were hit. I'm thinking that if a trained guardsmen can't hit a "mob" at 20m then he shouldn't be carrying a rifle. Sorry if this opinion is kicking you in the shins, but there are circumstances where lethal force is justified, ie Genoa last year with the policeman shooting the protestor, he was trapped, with nowhere to go and noone to help him and with a protestor about to throw a fire extinguisher at him. That is a justified use of force. Why didn't the guardsmen just fire at the ground or better yet - why the hell weren't they issued with batons? That would have cleared the crowd just as quickly. This sounds like a combination of mistakes by high command made worse by the fears of the guardsmen on the ground getting the better off them.
User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Post by Illuminatus Primus »

Darth Wong wrote:
Durran Korr wrote: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.
Please Wong. I don't have the right to take out my gun and load it when someone appears outside and vacates the cranium of my labrador? Maybe I won't fire on the guy, but I the right to defend myself and demand that he leave my property, if he remains or shows any sign of raising his gun to fire on my person, I'd feel 100% justified in place a 9mm Parabellum into his forehead. I however, do agree that "just" shooting my dog doesn't warrant be blowing your brains out, just yet. Approaching my house anymore probably would warrant it, IMHO.

However, if its U.S. Marshalls who called their identities out, that's something else all together.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image
User avatar
The Dark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7378
Joined: 2002-10-31 10:28pm
Location: Promoting ornithological awareness

Post by The Dark »

Patrick Degan wrote:
Except we're not talking about the May 1st riot in downtown Kent. We're talking about the May 4th campus shooting. The one event does not even remotely justify the other.

And in any case, the Guard didn't arrive on the campus —the bone of contention you insisted upon staking your attack upon— until the night of May 3rd.
http://members.aol.com/nrbooks/chronol.htm
May 2- Ohio National Guardsmen are sent to Kent State.

A National Guard officer was dispatched on Friday, May 1.The National Guard arrived the night of May 2nd, having "cleared the campus by midnight." The campus and city were "occupied" by the morning of May 3. These are all according to Kent State's library. http://www.library.kent.edu/exhibits/4m ... index.html

Additionally, a grand jury indictment failed to find the guardsmen culpable, since they "fired their weapons in the honest and sincere belief...that they would suffer serious bodily injury had they not done so." http://www.library.kent.edu/exhibits/4m ... ology.html (look under October 16, 1970). Three years later charges were brought up against some of the Guardsmen, but are acquitted.

http://www.may4.org/chron.html states that on May 1, police cruisers were attacked. On May 2, the wooden ROTC building was burned. When firefighters arrived to put out the fire, they were attacked and thier hoses were slashed. The National Guard fixed bayonets and dispersed the crowd. "Some stones were thrown and at least one student was bayoneted." On May 3 the Guardsmen were told that Ohio law stated they had the right to shoot if necessary. At noon on May 4 a crowd of 1500 students had illegally gathered on the Commons. They were ordered to disperse by Assistant Adjutant General Robert Canterbury. Upon their refusal to disperse, a "skirmish line" of 116 Guardsmen began forcing them back. National Guard tear gas canisters were thrown back at the Guard, and one straggler was subdued. Troop G continued to follow until they reached the practice football field, where a group of students were gathered in a parking lot. Both sides threw tear gas and rocks at each other, though many throws fell short due to the distance. Troop G then turned and began to return towards the Commons. The students assumed the confrontation was over and began to travel around campus. The nervous soldiers turned, and approximately one dozen opened fire upon verbal order.

It is entirely possible that Troop G assumed the students were pursuing them, and not dispersing. Under such circumstances, while the shootings are tragic, they are not impossible to comprehend. These were weekend warriors, not fully trained soldiers, and their reactions under pressure were much the same as most people's: end the threat at all cost. If they believed themselves to be at threat, as their later testimonies showed, then their actions, while unfortunate, were justified.
Stanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
BattleTech for SilCore
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

The Dark wrote:It is entirely possible that Troop G assumed the students were pursuing them, and not dispersing. Under such circumstances, while the shootings are tragic, they are not impossible to comprehend. These were weekend warriors, not fully trained soldiers, and their reactions under pressure were much the same as most peoples': end the threat at all cost. If they believed themselves to be at threat, as their later testimonies showed, then their actions, while unfortunate, were justified.
I'm afraid such is not the case. As has been pointed out several times, there was a minimum distance of twenty metres between the soldiers and the protestors, and the latter were not in a posture of attack. What the soldiers felt is immaterial; a deadly-force threat situation was not imminent.

Troop G then turned and began to return towards the Commons. The students assumed the confrontation was over and began to travel around campus. The nervous soldiers turned, and approximately one dozen opened fire upon verbal order.

Troop G is retreating, the students are not approaching in a unified body, indeed appear to be dispersing, and the Guardsmen turn around and open fire toward the general direction of the crowd. Not even into the crowd but just in its direction. And not just one volley but thirteen seconds of sustained automatic weapons fire, in which you have people up to 180 metres away not even involved in the incident being hit by stray bullets. And some of the soldiers testified later that they weren't sure if a verbal command was given or not.

You can't excuse the incident on the basis of the "weekend warriors'" alledged poor training. Indeed, that increases the culpability on the part of the commander on the ground and Gov. Rhodes, who mobilised the Guard in the first place, in four wrongful deaths. If your troops are that poorly trained and disciplined, then they have no business being on the field with live ammunition.

ADDENDUM
As far as the failure of the Ravenna County grand jury to issue indictments against the eight National Guardsmen and their officer is concerned, their refusal and that of the state to fulfill its responsibilities under the law does not mitigate in their favour. Indeed, they and ex-Governor Rhodes were ultimately forced to settle out of court in a Federal civil rights suit in 1979 with the parents of the four students killed that day.
Last edited by Patrick Degan on 2002-11-18 01:08am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Post by MKSheppard »

weemadando wrote:Look, I'm going to address two points here:

1- Shooting of the dog. The ATF agents were within their rights to be shooting the dog. If an animal was looking like it would a) compromise the operation or b) attack one of the officers, then they have the right to shoot it. From what I understand of the circumstances the shooting the dog though arguably not a neccessity was certainly a decision made well, based on available information. Any animal that has been trained as a guarddog or similar is classed as an offensive weapon. It would be the same as if someone had pulled a gun on the officers. They have the right to fire if they feel that their lives are threatened. You might say: what threat is a dog to a group of officers in body armour? Should that dog bark, it would alert the occupants of the house before the officers are in position, thus opening them up for an attack. Also, a dog can still cause you a lot of pain and hassles even IF you are in body armour.

As such, the shooting of the dog was justified. Don't confuse this with someone shooting your dog with a rifle for the hell of it. This was a warranted raid situation and the dog presented a clear and present danger to the safety of the officers.
Anyway, this is what happened:

August 21,1992

"You three know where you're going?" Deputy Marshal Arthur T. Roderick, Jr.
asked the members of the other three-man team. "The north peak?"

"Yeah, no problem."

"Looks like it's going to be a hot one. You guys going to wear body armor along with all that camo gear?" one of the group asked.

"Screw that. It's a big enough pain in the ass we got to lug around all this other shit every day, 'specially in the heat."

"That's the truth."

The six deputy marshals all decided to forego body armor that day.

What was going on that morning was nothing new. Federal marshals from the U. S. Marshal's Service had
been spying on the Weaver house for eighteen months, ever since Weaver had failed to show up for his
court date in February of 1991. For the first year, the Weaver 'mission' had been run by the northern Idaho
office of the U.S. Marshal's Service.

In March of 1992, however, control of the federal operation was handed over to the Marshal's Service
headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, two thousand miles away. In that month,
Deputy Marshal Arthur T.
Roderick, Jr., a member of the Marshal's Service's Special Operations Group, was sent from Arlington
headquarters to Idaho to take command of the Weaver operation.

Roderick was heading a six-man unit. He had split the group into two three-man teams. One team's job was
to watch the Weaver cabin from the distant vantage point of a mountain peak. The other team, which
included Roderick, planned to penetrate the dense woods immediately below Randy Weaver's house.

The other two members of Roderick's team were William Degan and Larry Cooper.

Although Roderick
himself had made over two dozen clandestine trips to the area around Randy Weaver's cabin in the past six
months, Degan and Cooper were new to this part of the operation. Roderick's plan was to move an
undercover agent onto the land adjacent to Weaver's, and, over the next few months, have him gain Randy
Weaver's confidence. Degan and/or Cooper were potential choices for this role, and Roderick intended to
familiarize them both with Weaver's property and the land around it.

"All set?" Arthur Roderick asked.

"Yeah, I guess."

"Hope it doesn't get too hot, with all this gear."

The three men on the penetration team wore camouflage over their entire bodies. On their heads were night
vision goggles. In their packs they carried still cameras, movie cameras, and electronics gear for
surveillance. Clipped to their harnesses were secure-voice radios. Roderick, Degan, and Cooper each
carried both a pistol and a machine gun. Roderick and Degan had Colt Ml6s, while Cooper's machine gun
was a 9mm with a sound suppressor. Between the three of them, the marshals were carrying four NFA
weapons.three machine guns and a silencer. None of the three men had filled out any registration forms
or paid any taxes on any of the four NFA weapons they carried, nor were any of the agents special
(occupational) taxpayers.

Randy Weaver had been under constant federal surveillance for eighteen months. The cost of this operation
would exceed what the government would spend on intelligence-gathering before the invasion of Haiti.

Federal agents carrying machine guns and over $50,000 worth of surveillance gear (but no search or arrest
warrants) were once again about to invade Weaver's property. All this was due to the feds' claim that a
piece of wood had been 3/8" too short, and Weaver had not paid a $5 tax on it.

The appalling irony of this situation was lost on Deputy Marshals Roderick, Degan, and Cooper.

"Oh, shit," Larry Cooper said. The three of them were in the woods below the Weaver family's cabin. It
was a little before 11:00 in the morning, and a dog had just started barking.

"Must've caught our scent," William Degan said.

"Let's get out of here," Arthur Roderick suggested. "Your machine gun has
a silencer," he said to Cooper.

"You shoot the dog." The three heavily armed deputy marshals began to
run down the hill.

"Sounds like Striker's found a deer," Kevin Harris said to Sammy Weaver.
Harris was a twenty-five-year-old logger, a family friend who spent much of his time at the Weaver cabin. Sammy and Kevin grabbed
their rifles from the wall rack and ran out the door towards the sound of Sammy's yellow Labrador
retriever.

As the dog approached, the three feds crouched down in the heavy brush and remained still. They were all
but invisible, for they wore not only camouflage clothing from head to toe, but also camo face paint. The
three men watched as the dog approached.

The yellow lab was much more of a pet than a guard dog. Striker had been around people all his life, and
because of the constant federal surveillance, the land around the Weaver cabin had been loaded with traces
of human scent for over a year. The dog had a good nose for birds and animals, but human scent did not set
him off. Striker had started barking not because he had smelled the deputy marshals, but because he had
heard them moving through the brush below the house. Now they were silent.

Roderick, Degan, and Cooper watched as the dog approached where they were hiding. Sammy Weaver and
Kevin Harris followed about sixty yards behind the yellow Lab.
No point in shooting now Cooper thought as the dog walked past the hiding place and continued down the
mountain. The Lab was no threat, and the 9mm machine gun Cooper carried, even with its sound
suppressor, would easily be heard by the two approaching young men. Best to wait here until they all go
away Cooper told himself as he watched the dog walk away from him and his two companions. Larry
Cooper was completely unprepared for what happened next.

Why doesn't he kill it? Deputy Marshal Arthur Roderick thought as the Labrador passed by their hiding
place. Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris were almost to the three agents when Roderick stood up, flipped
the selector lever of his M16 to 'semi', shouldered the rifle, and shot Weaver's dog in the rear.

The animal yelped once loudly enough to be heard over the rifle's tremendous muzzle blast, then died. Its spine had
been shattered by the high velocity rifle bullet.

"Sammy! Kevin! What's going on?" Randy Weaver shouted from above when he heard the shot.

Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris were taken utterly by surprise as the sound of the .223 blasted in their
ears. The Weaver boy had been watching Striker, and when he saw his dog killed, he whirled towards the
source of the shot and instinctively fired two quick rounds from his rifle in that general direction, then ran
towards the cabin. Neither shot hit anything other than brush.

"I'm coming, Dad!" the boy yelled. He had taken three steps before two rifle bullets slammed into him. The
first struck him in the upper arm, very nearly severing the limb from his body. The second hit him in the
back. Sammy Weaver's legs carried him two more steps before he fell on his face, dead. He had just
recently turned fourteen.

Randy Weaver, up on an adjacent logging road, was carrying a shotgun when he heard the shots ring out. A
shotgun was useless at that distance, so he started firing the weapon in the air as he ran towards the cabin.
He hoped to distract the feds from Sammy and Kevin and allow the two boys to escape. Randy Weaver did
not realize that his son was already dead.

Kevin Harris watched in horror as the boy he had known for nine years died before his eyes. Instinctively,
with his rifle held at waist level, Harris fired from the hip at the man who had killed Sammy, then turned
and ran. Kevin Harris proved to be more proficient at point shooting than his young friend had been. The
bullet hit Began in the rib cage, smashing several ribs and exiting behind his armpit. The bullet caused
massive trauma and hemmorhage into Degan's lung, killing the man.

Kevin Harris made it back to the cabin
safely.
As a terrified Roderick and Cooper stayed hidden in the bushes, the weather turned colder and it started to
rain. The two deputy marshals huddled by the body of their dead companion, shivering in the cold rain as
they waited for someone to come save them.

Finally, after nightfall, an Idaho State Police SWAT team
rescued the two men and recovered the dead marshal's corpse.

When sworn testimony was taken, Roderick and Cooper would repeat their initial statements that they had
made to the FBI. The two men said that Harris had fired the first shot, hitting Degan in the chest, and only
after Harris had killed their fellow marshal did the two feds return fire.

There would be several problems with this claim: The first was that both 14-year-old Sammy Weaver and
his yellow Labrador had been shot from behind. The second was that if Harris had fired the first shot of the
firefight, killing Began, it was certainly an odd response for Roderick to shoot the dog and let the young
man who had just killed his partner get away.

The final and most troubling fact that did not square with the marshals' claim was that seven pieces of .223
brass would be found next to where Began's corpse had fallen. These fired cases had come from Began's
M16 which, according to Deputy Marshal Cooper's sworn testimony, had been set on 'semi-automatic'
when Cooper later picked it up.

William Began had fired seven shots before he died. Many would claim
that Began could only have fired these rounds before Kevin Harris fired the single shot that tore through Began's chest and killed the marshal. Others quickly countered that Began had held his fire, then pulled the
trigger of his weapon seven times as fast as he could before falling down dead.

Another deputy marshal, a man named Jack Cluff, would do his part to exonerate Marshals Roderick and
Cooper by giving the Salt Lake Tribune yet another version of what had happened on that morning. In an
article that the Utah newspaper published two weeks later, Cluff explained that after Began had been shot,
Roderick and Cooper '...dove into a natural depression in the ground...held their guns overhead and cranked
off rounds blindly in front of them. Presumably, Samuel Weaver was killed in the exchange.'

Though Cluff would fail to mention it, presumably the dog was also killed in this panicked spray-and-pray
maneuver. Cluff would also fail to mention how he came by this proprietary knowledge about the incident,
given that he was not present when the shooting occurred.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Post Reply