" A Connecticut man called 911 early Wednesday morning during a
four-hour stand-off with his eight-pound cat.

Mohammed Lokman told the operator that he and his wife were forced to
sit outside in their car for hours because the angry cat was guarding
the entrance of their Stamford home."

[...]

"No charges were filed against the couple or the cat, according to the
police."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/06/man-calls-911-because-his-cat-too-aggressive

What a pussy the guy must be

Oren wrote:
" A Connecticut man called 911 early Wednesday morning during a
four-hour stand-off with his eight-pound cat.

Mohammed Lokman told the operator that he and his wife were forced to
sit outside in their car for hours because the angry cat was guarding
the entrance of their Stamford home."

[...]

"No charges were filed against the couple or the cat, according to the
police."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/06/man-calls-911-because-his-cat-too-aggressive

What a pussy the guy must be

I thought FOX was supposed to be a "news" organization?

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 12:57:31 AM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
Oren wrote:
" A Connecticut man called 911 early Wednesday morning during a
four-hour stand-off with his eight-pound cat.

Mohammed Lokman told the operator that he and his wife were forced to
sit outside in their car for hours because the angry cat was guarding
the entrance of their Stamford home."

[...]

"No charges were filed against the couple or the cat, according to the
police."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/06/man-calls-911-because-his-cat-too-aggressive

What a pussy the guy must be

I thought FOX was supposed to be a "news" organization?

Don't trust any TV network. They're all being manipulated by those insidious New World Order people hidden in the background. The various networks are being directed to appeal to those people of different political beliefs but all the networks have the same goal. Their goal is to have everyone constantly at each others throats by trying to foment hate and discord among the people. When their actions cause a civil or race war, they'll swoop in after it's over then steal and take over everything. I'm not paranoid or some conspiracy nut, I just know they're out to get everyone and steal all our property. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Paranoid Monster

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 1:57:31 AM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
Oren wrote:
" A Connecticut man called 911 early Wednesday morning during a
four-hour stand-off with his eight-pound cat.

Mohammed Lokman told the operator that he and his wife were forced to
sit outside in their car for hours because the angry cat was guarding
the entrance of their Stamford home."

[...]

"No charges were filed against the couple or the cat, according to the
police."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/06/man-calls-911-because-his-cat-too-aggressive

What a pussy the guy must be

I thought FOX was supposed to be a "news" organization?

It is news. It demonstrates the pussification of the USA
by you libs.

On 6/7/2015 7:58 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:

Don't trust any TV network. They're all being manipulated by those insidious New World Order people hidden in the background. The various networks are being directed to appeal to those people of different political beliefs but all the networks have the same goal. Their goal is to have everyone constantly at each others throats by trying to foment hate and discord among the people. When their actions cause a civil or race war, they'll swoop in after it's over then steal and take over everything. I'm not paranoid or some conspiracy nut, I just know they're out to get everyone and steal all our property. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Paranoid Monster


You especially can be concerned about anyone who
replies to your usenet posts, and appears friendly.

Right, buddy?

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 7:46:11 AM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 6/7/2015 7:58 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:

Don't trust any TV network. They're all being manipulated by those insidious New World Order people hidden in the background. The various networks are being directed to appeal to those people of different political beliefs but all the networks have the same goal. Their goal is to have everyone constantly at each others throats by trying to foment hate and discord among the people. When their actions cause a civil or race war, they'll swoop in after it's over then steal and take over everything. I'm not paranoid or some conspiracy nut, I just know they're out to get everyone and steal all our property. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Paranoid Monster


You especially can be concerned about anyone who
replies to your usenet posts, and appears friendly.

Right, buddy?

-
OMG!! IT'S ONE OF THEM!! RUN, RUN LIKE THE WIND!! In my case, roll, roll as fast as I can. Damn, I just wet the bed. o_O

[8~{} Uncle OMG Monster

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 1:57:31 AM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
Oren wrote:
" A Connecticut man called 911 early Wednesday morning during a
four-hour stand-off with his eight-pound cat.

Mohammed Lokman told the operator that he and his wife were forced to
sit outside in their car for hours because the angry cat was guarding
the entrance of their Stamford home."

[...]

"No charges were filed against the couple or the cat, according to the
police."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/06/man-calls-911-because-his-cat-too-aggressive

What a pussy the guy must be

I thought FOX was supposed to be a "news" organization?

It is news. It demonstrates the pussification of the USA
by you libs.

Exactly. Not only are we not supposed to use self defense against others,
now we cannot even control our pets. Call the police, they know best and
will arrive when it suits them. When seconds count, the police are only
minutes away.

On 6/7/2015 9:23 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 1:57:31 AM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
Oren wrote:

[snip]

It is news. It demonstrates the pussification of the USA
by you libs.

Exactly. Not only are we not supposed to use self defense against others,
now we cannot even control our pets. Call the police, they know best and
will arrive when it suits them. When seconds count, the police are only
minutes away.


Not that I'd ever have a cat in my house,but had that occurred here, the
only 911 call that would have occurred might have been from my neighbor:

911: 911, what is your emergency?

Caller: I'm not sure, I just heard a single gunshot from the house next
door!

"Unquestionably Confused" wrote in message
...
On 6/7/2015 9:23 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 1:57:31 AM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
Oren wrote:

[snip]

It is news. It demonstrates the pussification of the USA
by you libs.

Exactly. Not only are we not supposed to use self defense against
others,
now we cannot even control our pets. Call the police, they know best and
will arrive when it suits them. When seconds count, the police are only
minutes away.


Not that I'd ever have a cat in my house,but had that occurred here, the
only 911 call that would have occurred might have been from my neighbor:

911: 911, what is your emergency?

Caller: I'm not sure, I just heard a single gunshot from the house next
door!


SINGLE gunshot?

On 6/7/2015 9:54 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
"Unquestionably Confused" wrote in message
...
On 6/7/2015 9:23 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 1:57:31 AM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
Oren wrote:

[snip]

It is news. It demonstrates the pussification of the USA
by you libs.

Exactly. Not only are we not supposed to use self defense against
others,
now we cannot even control our pets. Call the police, they know best and
will arrive when it suits them. When seconds count, the police are only
minutes away.


Not that I'd ever have a cat in my house,but had that occurred here, the
only 911 call that would have occurred might have been from my neighbor:

911: 911, what is your emergency?

Caller: I'm not sure, I just heard a single gunshot from the house next
door!


SINGLE gunshot?


It's a cat. I can shoot and if you only fire one shot it's very
difficult to determine where it's coming from. Unfortunately, my
neighbors know that I have gunsg

"Unquestionably Confused" wrote in message
...
On 6/7/2015 9:54 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
"Unquestionably Confused" wrote in message
...
On 6/7/2015 9:23 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 1:57:31 AM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
Oren wrote:

[snip]

It is news. It demonstrates the pussification of the USA
by you libs.

Exactly. Not only are we not supposed to use self defense against
others,
now we cannot even control our pets. Call the police, they know best
and
will arrive when it suits them. When seconds count, the police are
only
minutes away.


Not that I'd ever have a cat in my house,but had that occurred here, the
only 911 call that would have occurred might have been from my neighbor:

911: 911, what is your emergency?

Caller: I'm not sure, I just heard a single gunshot from the house next
door!


SINGLE gunshot?


It's a cat. I can shoot and if you only fire one shot it's very difficult
to determine where it's coming from. Unfortunately, my neighbors know
that I have gunsg


nevertheless.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 09:48:15 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:

Not that I'd ever have a cat in my house,but had that occurred here, the
only 911 call that would have occurred might have been from my neighbor:

911: 911, what is your emergency?

Caller: I'm not sure, I just heard a single gunshot from the house next
door!

Sounds like a waste of ammo. Just punt that SOB over the fence into
the neighbor's yard and go in the house.

practice is never a waste of ammo.

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 9:48:20 AM UTC-5, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 6/7/2015 9:23 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 1:57:31 AM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
Oren wrote:

[snip]

It is news. It demonstrates the pussification of the USA
by you libs.

Exactly. Not only are we not supposed to use self defense against others,
now we cannot even control our pets. Call the police, they know best and
will arrive when it suits them. When seconds count, the police are only
minutes away.


Not that I'd ever have a cat in my house,but had that occurred here, the
only 911 call that would have occurred might have been from my neighbor:

911: 911, what is your emergency?

Caller: I'm not sure, I just heard a single gunshot from the house next
door!

A dead cat can be very useful. 8-)

https://tinyurl.com/nhwm62o

[8~{} Uncle Cat Monster

On 06/07/2015 10:48 AM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 6/7/2015 9:23 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 1:57:31 AM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
Oren wrote:

[snip]

It is news. It demonstrates the pussification of the USA
by you libs.

Exactly. Not only are we not supposed to use self defense against others,
now we cannot even control our pets. Call the police, they know best and
will arrive when it suits them. When seconds count, the police are only
minutes away.


Not that I'd ever have a cat in my house,but had that occurred here, the only 911 call that would have occurred might have been from my neighbor:

911: 911, what is your emergency?

Caller: I'm not sure, I just heard a single gunshot from the house next
door!


It's only a crime if you get caught.

http://www.alleycat.org/page.aspx?pid=303

On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 07:54:16 -0700, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"Unquestionably Confused" wrote in message
...
On 6/7/2015 9:23 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 1:57:31 AM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
Oren wrote:

[snip]

It is news. It demonstrates the pussification of the USA
by you libs.

Exactly. Not only are we not supposed to use self defense against
others,
now we cannot even control our pets. Call the police, they know best and
will arrive when it suits them. When seconds count, the police are only
minutes away.


Not that I'd ever have a cat in my house,but had that occurred here, the
only 911 call that would have occurred might have been from my neighbor:

911: 911, what is your emergency?

Caller: I'm not sure, I just heard a single gunshot from the house next
door!


SINGLE gunshot?

Apparently he's a good shot.

On 6/6/15 3:27 PM, Oren wrote:
" A Connecticut man called 911 early Wednesday morning during a
four-hour stand-off with his eight-pound cat.

Mohammed Lokman told the operator that he and his wife were forced to
sit outside in their car for hours because the angry cat was guarding
the entrance of their Stamford home."

[...]

"No charges were filed against the couple or the cat, according to the
police."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/06/man-calls-911-because-his-cat-too-aggressive

What a pussy the guy must be

It may have been a Siamese Tiger. They don't wear stripes and look
small, but that's just to fool the public.

I knew a Coast Guard chief who came from the Philippines. He'd been a
guerrilla in WWII, IIRC. He was clearly very tough. If his office door
was open, I didn't step in unannounced because he might be practicing
with his throwing knives.

When he was playing with his small son on the carpet, the tiger
misunderstood the situation and attacked. The chief didn't stand a
chance. The tiger broke off the attack when the chief got well away from
the kid. When he got back from the emergency room, he dropped the tiger
into a bath tub with a cheater cord. It was easy. When a Siamese Tiger
isn't protecting anyone, it acts like a pussy cat.

Without training, a Siamese Tiger will behave and obey like a trained
German Shepherd. On an overseas assignment, a woman lived in a bad
neighborhood. One night, she heard a burglar in her apartment. She heard
him run out noisily and saw her tiger on his back. The tiger returned
with a triumphant look, and nobody ever again bothered her apartment.

Another woman was fearful of the creepy young man in the next apartment.
One morning when she came out her door, he was loitering close. Her
tiger placed himself between them and made noises only a Siamese Tiger
can make. The young man beat a retreat and kept his distance after that.

A Siamese Tiger will also go after a large dog with a reputation for
killing cats. Unlike some dogs, they don't attack for sport, but the
owner of such a dangerous beast must keep an eye on it. When a
two-year-old hugged his grandmother, a Siamese Tiger misunderstood and
raced across the yard to protect the grandmother. The owner shouted
"No!" The tiger ran off and reappeared looking sheepish. That's typical
of a Siamese Tiger who has been rebuked for going after somebody
inappropriately.

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 2:24:22 AM UTC-4, J Burns wrote:
On 6/6/15 3:27 PM, Oren wrote:
" A Connecticut man called 911 early Wednesday morning during a
four-hour stand-off with his eight-pound cat.

Mohammed Lokman told the operator that he and his wife were forced to
sit outside in their car for hours because the angry cat was guarding
the entrance of their Stamford home."

[...]

"No charges were filed against the couple or the cat, according to the
police."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/06/man-calls-911-because-his-cat-too-aggressive

What a pussy the guy must be

It may have been a Siamese Tiger. They don't wear stripes and look
small, but that's just to fool the public.

I knew a Coast Guard chief who came from the Philippines. He'd been a
guerrilla in WWII, IIRC. He was clearly very tough. If his office door
was open, I didn't step in unannounced because he might be practicing
with his throwing knives.

When he was playing with his small son on the carpet, the tiger
misunderstood the situation and attacked. The chief didn't stand a
chance. The tiger broke off the attack when the chief got well away from
the kid. When he got back from the emergency room, he dropped the tiger
into a bath tub with a cheater cord. It was easy. When a Siamese Tiger
isn't protecting anyone, it acts like a pussy cat.

I would have reported this scum to animal control. The cat was
trying to defend his son, because he thought the infant was
being attacked and this is what he does? And you go
around making it sound like it's OK, perfectly normal?
Good grief.

On 6/7/2015 9:59 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 7:46:11 AM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:
You especially can be concerned about anyone who
replies to your usenet posts, and appears friendly.

Right, buddy?

-
OMG!! IT'S ONE OF THEM!! RUN, RUN LIKE THE WIND!! In my case, roll, roll as fast as I can. Damn, I just wet the bed. o_O

[8~{} Uncle OMG Monster


You can trust me; I'm from the government and
I'm here to help.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 6/8/15 7:51 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 2:24:22 AM UTC-4, J Burns wrote:
On 6/6/15 3:27 PM, Oren wrote:
" A Connecticut man called 911 early Wednesday morning during a
four-hour stand-off with his eight-pound cat.

Mohammed Lokman told the operator that he and his wife were forced to
sit outside in their car for hours because the angry cat was guarding
the entrance of their Stamford home."

[...]

"No charges were filed against the couple or the cat, according to the
police."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/06/man-calls-911-because-his-cat-too-aggressive

What a pussy the guy must be

It may have been a Siamese Tiger. They don't wear stripes and look
small, but that's just to fool the public.

I knew a Coast Guard chief who came from the Philippines. He'd been a
guerrilla in WWII, IIRC. He was clearly very tough. If his office door
was open, I didn't step in unannounced because he might be practicing
with his throwing knives.

When he was playing with his small son on the carpet, the tiger
misunderstood the situation and attacked. The chief didn't stand a
chance. The tiger broke off the attack when the chief got well away from
the kid. When he got back from the emergency room, he dropped the tiger
into a bath tub with a cheater cord. It was easy. When a Siamese Tiger
isn't protecting anyone, it acts like a pussy cat.

I would have reported this scum to animal control.

I don't think it's fair to call the tiger scum. It was defending the
boy from a perceived threat.

The cat was
trying to defend his son, because he thought the infant was
being attacked and this is what he does? And you go
around making it sound like it's OK, perfectly normal?
Good grief.


An objective reporter such as yours truly can't very well inject the
personal opinion that it's a sad story.

What about the tiger who went after the two-year-old, mistakenly trying
to protect the grandmother? It obeyed its owner and showed remorse. What
if nobody had been able to stop the attack, and there were likely to be
future attacks? The chief was in that position. If it would attack
him, it could attack others, too. If he'd been cruel, he would have
killed it by throwing knives.

On 6/9/2015 12:49 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Talking heads, school officials, and politicians still tell us the four
victims were throwing rocks and the guardsmen murdered them out of
anger. It's all about social division, and the public eats it up.

I'm surprised anyone took what me and Storman
wrote seriously. I thought the bump in my cheek
was obvious. 8-)

[8~{} Uncle Prank Monster


My view of Our Nation's Leaders, is that they
truly are practicing class division. I know
because I hate rich people who didn't pay their
fair share, black people who pop out babies,
hispanics who take up all the jobs, poor people
who suck the welfare system dry, handicap people
who use lots of benefits, business owners who
cheat the poor, Muslims who convert, Mormons
who convert, Priests who harm kids, SUV drivers
for killing the planet and HVAC guys who use
freon.

About the only people I love are politicians.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 6/9/15 12:49 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 9:50:41 AM UTC-5, J Burns wrote:
On 6/7/15 8:46 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 6/7/2015 7:58 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:

Don't trust any TV network. They're all being manipulated by
those insidious New World Order people hidden in the
background. The various networks are being directed to appeal
to those people of different political beliefs but all the
networks have the same goal. Their goal is to have everyone
constantly at each others throats by trying to foment hate and
discord among the people.


I'm surprised anyone took what me and Storman wrote seriously. I
thought the bump in my cheek was obvious. 8-)

[8~{} Uncle Prank Monster


Which do you believe?

A. Nixon and Agnew would never seek to popularize their "silent
majority" by dividing the nation.

B. News networks have no political considerations. They are as honest
and altruistic as Perry White and his "Daily Planet."

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 1:11:24 PM UTC-5, J Burns wrote:
On 6/9/15 12:49 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 9:50:41 AM UTC-5, J Burns wrote:
On 6/7/15 8:46 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 6/7/2015 7:58 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:

Don't trust any TV network. They're all being manipulated by
those insidious New World Order people hidden in the
background. The various networks are being directed to appeal
to those people of different political beliefs but all the
networks have the same goal. Their goal is to have everyone
constantly at each others throats by trying to foment hate and
discord among the people.


I'm surprised anyone took what me and Storman wrote seriously. I
thought the bump in my cheek was obvious. 8-)

[8~{} Uncle Prank Monster


Which do you believe?

A. Nixon and Agnew would never seek to popularize their "silent
majority" by dividing the nation.

B. News networks have no political considerations. They are as honest
and altruistic as Perry White and his "Daily Planet."

When I was a young man I leaned Liberal like young adults are supposed to but I outgrew it and wound up being an Independent Conservative Libertarian. I'm a chronic sceptic when it comes to information submitted by the government or disseminated by The Fifth Column Press. Everyone has a spin on anything they report or declare so I listen to as many sources as I can and filter out the bull poop to get at the truth. Life is very entertaining if one accepts the human condition. 8-)

[8~{} Uncle Grumpy Monster

On 6/9/15 11:14 AM, trader_4 wrote:
IDK how and why this came out of left field, but it's nuts.
You'd have to be a conspiracy loon to believe that it was some
other snipers who fired, as opposed to the national guardsmen that so
many witnesses saw do the shooting.

I'll bet the talking heads told you to say that. I commend your allegiance.

The fact that several guardsmen fired doesn't mean nobody else fired. A
student who was shot in the neck was taken to Akron, IIRC. The attending
physician called the press. He'd treated more than 1,000 gunshot wounds
in WWII. The victim was in good shape because the bullet had ricocheted
off his jaw. A military round would have torn half his head off. He said
the guardsmen had no weapon that harmless. He said it must have been
similar to a 22.

When the talking heads rebutted him, he sent photos to pathologists at
Walter Reed. They agreed with him. The best Nixon could do was vague
testimony by a New York City doctor who I believe had never treated any
kind of gunshot wound.

And it would make no sense
for the govt to have done it deliberately, because all the
negative results that came with it were easily predictable. It was
what it was.

Nixon had been the ******* who had promised to end the war, then sent
our boys into harm's way in Cambodia. The Kent State Stunt allowed
people who loved to hate to be disgusted with American troops and
student protestors alike. Hail to the chief, Nixon could now send troops
to Vietnam three more years without political cost, and being antiwar
didn't look respectable.

One thing almost all of these incidents do share in common is
that when you start egging on cops or other law enforcement,
challenging them, disobeying their commands, resisting arrest,
throwing rocks at them, etc, it can lead to some very bad things
happening.

Soldiers said they turned because they heard incoming small-arms fire.
Some didn't hear it. That's natural. If they didn't recognize the
sound, they'd think it was students with firecrackers.

Life magazine had asked the editor of the college paper to recommend a
photojournalist. He recommended a student on his staff who had been a
photojournalist in the Air Force. Standing near Cleary, he got a
picture as the soldiers turned. Only some are turning. Some of them are
crouching. They are looking in different directions. They look alarmed,
as if hearing incoming rounds.

When they turned, they saw a mob alarmingly close, rushing at them with
baseball bats and golf clubs. The talking heads denied it, but news
video caught it and witnesses testified. An engineering student with a
microphone hanging from his window recorded a soldier shouting, "Fire
over their heads!" As nobody in the mob was hit, all the soldiers must
have fired high. They were on a hill. Cars in the parking lot below
were hit.

Students, too, told investigators they'd heard three shots a few seconds
before the soldiers fired. It seems nobody checked the student's tape,
which he donated to the library. It was decades before somebody
remembered the tape and checked. The three shots are there.

One must have been the round that hit Cleary in the back as he
photographed the solders. Nearby is a sculpture with a bullet hole
through a 1/4" steel plate. All the talking heads say the soldiers fired
that shot, but the protruding side is toward the guardsmen. We're
supposed to believe the talking heads without any expert opinion.

A couple of days after the shooting, an FBI ballistics expert at the
scene told an Ohio newspaper reporter that bullet had been fired toward
the soldiers. Decades later, a researcher used the Freedom of
Information Act to get FBI investigation records. The round through the
steel plate was indeed aimed toward the soldiers. So was a round that
passed through a nearby tree trunk.

*****

Are you insinuating that the four victims were provoking the troops? The
propagandists claimed concrete particles had been found in the pockets
of Krauss's army jacket, proving she'd been throwing chunks of concrete.
The Life photographer took several photos of her in the last minutes of
her life. She wasn't wearing an army jacket. She was dressed like a
1940s coed or an LL Bean fashion model.

The day the soldiers had arrived on campus, a coed had come forward and
put a flower into a soldier's rifle barrel. There were thousands of
students on campus, but she was recognized wherever she went because she
was tall and strikingly beautiful. It was Krauss, a living doll. The
soldier must have been tickled pink. Relations between students and
soldiers had been very friendly since then.

Dorm doors were kept locked because students feared the radical mobs.
The night before her murder, Krauss pounded on a dorm door as a mob
caught up with her and tried to abduct her. Students in the lobby
unlocked the door and pulled her in. The mob burst in and exited after
a confrontation. Krauss spent the night in a friend's room because it
would not have been safe to try to go to her dorm. She phoned her
mother to say she was scared.

The rally for noon the next day fizzled. There were a few hundred
students in the crowd, but most were just curious. There were lots of
other students in the area because it was lunch time. When Krauss came
along, there was some rock throwing. It didn't concern the soldiers
because they were too far away. Instead of passing behind the crowd, she
walked in front, where she turned and spoke to students she recognized.
That stopped the rock throwing. The show was over.

Witnesses said she was facing the guardsmen at the moment she was shot,
watching the sudden flurry 100 yards up the hill as the mob with clubs
rushed the soldiers. The autopsy said the bullet went through her upper
left arm, through the left lateral of her chest, and to her heart. There
were no guardsmen to her left. They didn't shoot her.

Unlike Krauss, Miller wasn't well known because he'd recently
transferred to Kent State. He was quiet and well behaved. He was a
Nelson Rockerfeller fan. The night before, a classmate had returned
after spending the weekend at home. He'd warned her to watch out
because the radical mobs were dangerous. He said he was afraid there
would be trouble because the authorities were letting them get away with
too much.

The talking heads say a malicious guardsman took aim and shot him in his
open mouth because he had been throwing rocks and making finger
gestures. I guess Nobody said that, because I haven't found the name of
a single witness.

A radical claims he saw Miller at the hospital and thought he was
sleeping because the bullet hole in his mouth wasn't externally visible.
His father would disagree. He was unable to identify the body because
his face had been blown off. The autopsy said the bullet entered his
head from behind.

He had been standing near Krauss, watching the sudden commotion on the
hill, to the north. Apparently no witness saw him shot. He fell face
down, hands at his sides, pointing east. If he was shot a moment after
Krauss, that makes sense. Hearing shots, he would have turned right to
look for the cover of a car. He was shot from the same direction as
Krauss. The basketball arena was nearby in that direction. At lunch time
in May, the door was probably locked.

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 3:00:26 AM UTC-4, J Burns wrote:
On 6/9/15 11:14 AM, trader_4 wrote:
IDK how and why this came out of left field, but it's nuts.
You'd have to be a conspiracy loon to believe that it was some
other snipers who fired, as opposed to the national guardsmen that so
many witnesses saw do the shooting.

I'll bet the talking heads told you to say that. I commend your allegiance.

The fact that several guardsmen fired doesn't mean nobody else fired.

Sure, just like the fact that 6 witnesses saw the two perps arrested
leaving the bank with the stolen money doesn't mean that someone else
didn't also steal the money. But then just like in the bank example,
we have a bunch of witnesses that saw the guardsmen shoot, and none
that saw the mystery conspirators at all.....


A
student who was shot in the neck was taken to Akron, IIRC. The attending
physician called the press. He'd treated more than 1,000 gunshot wounds
in WWII. The victim was in good shape because the bullet had ricocheted
off his jaw. A military round would have torn half his head off. He said
the guardsmen had no weapon that harmless. He said it must have been
similar to a 22.

When the talking heads rebutted him, he sent photos to pathologists at
Walter Reed. They agreed with him. The best Nixon could do was vague
testimony by a New York City doctor who I believe had never treated any
kind of gunshot wound.


So, Nixon was the mystery unseen gunman?




And it would make no sense
for the govt to have done it deliberately, because all the
negative results that came with it were easily predictable. It was
what it was.

Nixon had been the ******* who had promised to end the war, then sent
our boys into harm's way in Cambodia. The Kent State Stunt allowed
people who loved to hate to be disgusted with American troops and
student protestors alike. Hail to the chief, Nixon could now send troops
to Vietnam three more years without political cost, and being antiwar
didn't look respectable.


What world were you living in? Kent State was a political disaster.
It didn't further enable Nixon or the war effort, it did exactly the
opposite. But then it's typical of the total reversals of reality
so essential to conspiracy theorists.



One thing almost all of these incidents do share in common is
that when you start egging on cops or other law enforcement,
challenging them, disobeying their commands, resisting arrest,
throwing rocks at them, etc, it can lead to some very bad things
happening.

Soldiers said they turned because they heard incoming small-arms fire.
Some didn't hear it. That's natural. If they didn't recognize the
sound, they'd think it was students with firecrackers.

Life magazine had asked the editor of the college paper to recommend a
photojournalist. He recommended a student on his staff who had been a
photojournalist in the Air Force. Standing near Cleary, he got a
picture as the soldiers turned. Only some are turning. Some of them are
crouching. They are looking in different directions. They look alarmed,
as if hearing incoming rounds.


Just like the example I cited in NYC, where cops fired hundreds of
rounds, killing an unarmed guy standing in a doorway. Once the first
shot if fired, confusion sets in, many or all of the rest of the cops
think it's the perp firing, so they join in. Confusion in volatile
situations like that surprises you? Good grief.


When they turned, they saw a mob alarmingly close, rushing at them with
baseball bats and golf clubs. The talking heads denied it, but news
video caught it and witnesses testified. An engineering student with a
microphone hanging from his window recorded a soldier shouting, "Fire
over their heads!" As nobody in the mob was hit, all the soldiers must
have fired high. They were on a hill. Cars in the parking lot below
were hit.

Oh, I see, now it's a mob with baseball bats and golf clubs. And a
recording of a guardsman yelling to "Fire over their heads.....", but
it was still Nixon hiding somewhere with a 22? Good grief.



Students, too, told investigators they'd heard three shots a few seconds
before the soldiers fired. It seems nobody checked the student's tape,
which he donated to the library. It was decades before somebody
remembered the tape and checked. The three shots are there.

So what? Proves nothing.



Are you insinuating that the four victims were provoking the troops?

I'm telling you that students, agitators had been throwing bottles
and rocks at police, committing crimes and provoking them for days
before the shooting. And that anytime you do that, you're setting up
a very bad environment, where it's not unusual for someone to wind up
seriously injured or dead. And that when you create that kind of
environment, which the protestors/agitators had done, to rely on
law enforcement to perform perfectly, to not make any mistakes, is nuts.



The
propagandists claimed concrete particles had been found in the pockets
of Krauss's army jacket, proving she'd been throwing chunks of concrete.
The Life photographer took several photos of her in the last minutes of
her life. She wasn't wearing an army jacket. She was dressed like a
1940s coed or an LL Bean fashion model.

The day the soldiers had arrived on campus, a coed had come forward and
put a flower into a soldier's rifle barrel. There were thousands of
students on campus, but she was recognized wherever she went because she
was tall and strikingly beautiful. It was Krauss, a living doll. The
soldier must have been tickled pink. Relations between students and
soldiers had been very friendly since then.

Baloney,


From Wikipedia:

Friday, May 1[edit]

At Kent State University a demonstration with about 500 students[10] was held on May 1 on the Commons (a grassy knoll in the center of campus traditionally used as a gathering place for rallies or protests). As the crowd dispersed to attend classes by 1 p.m., another rally was planned for May 4 to continue the protest of the expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia. There was widespread anger, and many protesters issued a call to "bring the war home". A group of history students buried a copy of the U.S. Constitution to symbolize that Nixon had killed it.[10]

Trouble exploded in town around midnight, when people left a bar and began throwing beer bottles at police cars and breaking downtown storefronts. In the process they broke a bank window, setting off an alarm. The news spread quickly and it resulted in several bars closing early to avoid trouble. Before long, more people had joined the vandalism.

Saturday, May 2[edit]

City officials and downtown businesses received threats, while rumors proliferated that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and university. Mayor Satrom met with Kent city officials and a representative of the Ohio Army National Guard. Following the meeting, Satrom made the decision to call Governor Rhodes and request that the National Guard be sent to Kent, a request that was granted. Because of the rumors and threats, Satrom believed that local officials would not be able to handle future disturbances.[

Sunday, May 3[edit]

During a press conference at the Kent firehouse, an emotional Governor Rhodes pounded on the desk[17] and called the student protesters un-American, referring to them as revolutionaries set on destroying higher education in Ohio. "We've seen here at the city of Kent especially, probably the most vicious form of campus oriented violence yet perpetrated by dissident groups. They make definite plans of burning, destroying, and throwing rocks at police, and at the National Guard and the Highway Patrol. This is when we're going to use every part of the law enforcement agency of Ohio to drive them out of Kent
Rhodes also claimed he would obtain a court order declaring a state of emergency that would ban further demonstrations and gave the impression that a situation akin to martial law had been declared; however, he never attempted to obtain such an order. They are not going to take over [the] campus. I think that we're up against the strongest, well-trained, militant, revolutionary group that has ever assembled in America."[18] Rhodes can be heard in the recording of his speech yelling and pounding his fists on the desk.[19]

Around 8:00 pm, another rally was held on the campus Commons. By 8:45 pm the Guardsmen used tear gas to disperse the crowd, and the students reassembled at the intersection of Lincoln and Main, holding a sit-in with the hopes of gaining a meeting with Mayor Satrom and the university president, Robert White. At 11:00 p.m., the Guard announced that a curfew had gone into effect and began forcing the students back to their dorms. A few students were bayoneted by Guardsmen

Monday, May 4[edit]

On Monday, May 4, a protest was scheduled to be held at noon, as had been planned three days earlier.

Companies A and C, 1/145th Infantry and Troop G of the 2/107th Armored Cavalry, Ohio National Guard (ARNG), the units on the campus grounds, attempted to disperse the students. The legality of the dispersal was later debated at a subsequent wrongful death and injury trial. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that authorities did indeed have the right to disperse the crowd.[22]

The dispersal process began late in the morning with campus patrolman Harold Rice,[23] riding in a National Guard Jeep, approaching the students to read them an order to disperse or face arrest. The protesters responded by throwing rocks, striking one campus patrolman and forcing the Jeep to retreat..[7]

Just before noon, the Guard returned and again ordered the crowd to disperse. When most of the crowd refused, the Guard used tear gas. Because of wind, the tear gas had little effect in dispersing the crowd, and some launched a second volley of rocks toward the Guard's line, to chants of, "Pigs off campus!" The students lobbed the tear gas canisters back at the National Guardsmen, who wore gas masks.

When it became clear that the crowd was not going to disperse, a group of 77 National Guard troops from A Company and Troop G, with bayonets fixed on their M1 Garand rifles, began to advance upon the hundreds of unarmed protesters.


There you have the lead up to the shooting. It was not pretty girls with
flowers. Just the facts. You actually think in that kind of environment,
it takes some conspiracy involving hidden, secret shooters? Good grief.
It's typical of all conspiracy loons. Ignore the 15 ft elephant in the
room, then focus in on nits, and use anything that doesn't quite fit, that
can't be totally explained and try to turn that into a conspiracy. Going
back to the bank robbery example, it's like ignoring all the evidence
that shows who actually robbed the bank, the 8 witnesses that saw them
do it, and instead focus on the two witnesses that claim the get away
car was a different color, went the other way, they saw a third guy,
whatever.

On 6/10/15 8:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 3:00:26 AM UTC-4, J Burns wrote:


A
student who was shot in the neck was taken to Akron, IIRC. The
attending physician called the press. He'd treated more than 1,000
gunshot wounds in WWII. The victim was in good shape because the
bullet had ricocheted off his jaw. A military round would have torn
half his head off. He said the guardsmen had no weapon that
harmless. He said it must have been similar to a 22.

When the talking heads rebutted him, he sent photos to pathologists
at Walter Reed. They agreed with him. The best Nixon could do was
vague testimony by a New York City doctor who I believe had never
treated any kind of gunshot wound.


So, Nixon was the mystery unseen gunman?


Ah, facetiousness! Excellent tactic!


And it would make no sense for the govt to have done it
deliberately, because all the negative results that came with it
were easily predictable. It was what it was.

Nixon had been the ******* who had promised to end the war, then
sent our boys into harm's way in Cambodia. The Kent State Stunt
allowed people who loved to hate to be disgusted with American
troops and student protestors alike. Hail to the chief, Nixon could
now send troops to Vietnam three more years without political cost,
and being antiwar didn't look respectable.


What world were you living in? Kent State was a political disaster.
It didn't further enable Nixon or the war effort, it did exactly the
opposite. But then it's typical of the total reversals of reality so
essential to conspiracy theorists.

It was a political disaster for American troops and antiwar
demonstrators, but the Gallup Polls found a surge in Nixon's popularity.
It was two more years before he was again as popular has he'd been in
the wake of Kent State.




Students, too, told investigators they'd heard three shots a few
seconds before the soldiers fired. It seems nobody checked the
student's tape, which he donated to the library. It was decades
before somebody remembered the tape and checked. The three shots
are there.

So what? Proves nothing.

The shots could be identified as coming from rifles similar to M1's, not
firecrackers. Thousands of eyes were on the guardsmen. They didn't
shoot. And you say it proves nothing. The day after the shootings, the
Adjutant General of the Ohio National Guard told reporters there was a
sniper. Talking heads scoffed.



Are you insinuating that the four victims were provoking the
troops?

I'm telling you that students, agitators had been throwing bottles
and rocks at police, committing crimes and provoking them for days
before the shooting. And that anytime you do that, you're setting
up a very bad environment, where it's not unusual for someone to wind
up seriously injured or dead. And that when you create that kind of
environment, which the protestors/agitators had done, to rely on law
enforcement to perform perfectly, to not make any mistakes, is nuts.



The
propagandists claimed concrete particles had been found in the
pockets of Krauss's army jacket, proving she'd been throwing chunks
of concrete. The Life photographer took several photos of her in
the last minutes of her life. She wasn't wearing an army jacket.
She was dressed like a 1940s coed or an LL Bean fashion model.

The day the soldiers had arrived on campus, a coed had come forward
and put a flower into a soldier's rifle barrel. There were
thousands of students on campus, but she was recognized wherever
she went because she was tall and strikingly beautiful. It was
Krauss, a living doll. The soldier must have been tickled pink.
Relations between students and soldiers had been very friendly
since then.

Baloney,

Witnesses who gladly identified themselves to investigators, reporters,
and researchers said they saw it. Are you saying it didn't happen
because your talking heads didn't mention it? Was Allison Krauss
fictitious?

From Wikipedia:

Great. An anonymous article. His eyewitnesses are Unidentified Speaker
1 and Unidentified Speaker 2. That why the talking heads tell us a
soldier shot Miller in his open mouth. Let's ignore his father and the
doctors. Unidentified Speakers 1 and 2 would never misinform us.


The dispersal process began late in the morning with campus patrolman
Harold Rice,[23] riding in a National Guard Jeep, approaching the
students to read them an order to disperse or face arrest. The
protesters responded by throwing rocks, striking one campus patrolman
and forcing the Jeep to retreat.[7]




When it became clear that the crowd was not going to disperse, a
group of 77 National Guard troops from A Company and Troop G, with
bayonets fixed on their M1 Garand rifles, began to advance upon the
hundreds of unarmed protesters.


There you have the lead up to the shooting.

I'd suggest that you read it again, but it wouldn't do any good. You're
not interested in facts, only the conclusions the talking heads gave
you. I commend you on your allegiance.

The campus cops had always had good relations with the student body.
Rice was like Andy Griffith as Sheriff Taylor. He'd been laid up with a
groin injury after being hit with a concrete missile when radicals
burned a campus building in the dark, but now he volunteered to go
forward and remind the crowd that the rally was illegal. That's because
he was very concerned for the safety of the demonstrators, his son, and
thousands of other students. They stoned him, but he was patient. I'm
sure he approved of the bayonets to deter violence. Outside instigators
had told the suckers that the soldiers had only blanks, but they
couldn't be convinced to confront bayonets.

There were guard units standing peacefully all over the campus. A major
and a warrant officer commanded the unit in question, but Robert
Canterbury, commanding general of the Ohio National Guard, took personal
command.

The guardsmen and the student body considered the illegal rally
harmless. Some in the crowd later told investigators that a professor
had told all the students they would flunk if they did not attend.
Except that one or more had thrown stones at Rice, it was clear that
instigators could not get the crowd to attack anyone or burn any
buildings in broad daylight with guardsmen everywhere. They predicted
that participants would get bored and go about their business.

Canterbury, in civilian clothes, took the contingent to force the crowd
to move on. They followed the retreating demonstrators up a hill. In
removing stone throwers from the commons, it was a tactical success, but
it could be considered a strategic blunder by making the situation
interesting to demonstrators.

Why was he in civilian clothes? Soldiers needed to be able to spot their
commander in the event of a crisis. Why was he marching with the little
unit? The major could have handled it. At any moment, there could have
been trouble anywhere on campus. He belonged with the headquarters
group, where he could get reports immediately, confer, and issue orders.

He ordered them to veer off and march back down to an empty tennis
court. He had indeed spurred the interest of demonstrators. With the
soldiers fenced in hundreds of feet from the rally point, demonstrators
returned, and some began throwing rocks. At that range, it was harmless
self-expression. So far, the only violence had been the rocks a handful
had thrown at Rice. Thanks to the presence of the guard, the campus was
calm and safe.

Canterbury ordered soldiers to kneel and aim at the crowd. That was
outrageous, pointing rifles at students who weren't harming anyone.
Such a bluff also made the soldiers look stupid. It was bound to spur
the demonstrators. It would also alienate the student body, who wanted
the soldiers present. It was a bluff to kill harmless demonstrators and
anybody in the background.

The talking heads claim the soldiers first huddled, as if they were a
criminal gang conspiring. It's not far-fetched to say Nixon orchestrated
the incident to gain a political advantage by giving his followers
someone to hate. He'd made a career of it. It's absurd to suggest the
guardsmen conspired. They did it only because they were sworn to obey
orders.

Nixon put a gag order on the soldiers, preventing them from saying what
they thought of those orders. You and your talking heads could speak
for them, telling us what they did and what was on their mind.

Years later, when he was out from under the order, Sergeant Shafer, a
fireman, contacted a reporter. Among other things, he expressed utter
contempt for Canterbury.

After ordering them to march to the tennis court, where they were fenced
in away from the action, then ordering them to threaten the distant
students by kneeling and aiming, Canterbury ordered them to march to a
hilltop, where there was no mob and nothing to protect.

On the way up the hill, they marched past a crowd of men with golf clubs
and baseball bats, loitering by a building. The soldiers were there to
stop such armed mobs from attacking anyone, but Canterbury marched the
unit right past so that their backs were to the mob. If they'd been
told the soldiers didn't have live rounds, Canterbury invited the
ensuing attack.

It was not forcing the demonstrators off the commons that led to the
shootings, as you claim. It was Canterbury's subsequent series of
bizarre commands. The general was right there giving the orders, but you
and the talking heads pretend it was something the enlisted troops did
on their own. He has never been called upon to explain his bizarre
orders. Wearing civvies was a pretty good disguise, as if he were an
innocent bystander who happened to be with the unit, giving commands.

Going back to the bank robbery
example, it's like ignoring all the evidence that shows who actually
robbed the bank, the 8 witnesses that saw them do it, and instead
focus on the two witnesses that claim the get away car was a
different color, went the other way, they saw a third guy, whatever.

So now you compare the troops to bank robbers, and, despite evidence to
the contrary, say the victims brought it on themselves. That's the
contempt the Nixon-Agnew team liked to engender among their disciples.

So witnesses see bank robbers fire and people are hit. In most places,
including Ohio, the law isn't as closed-minded as you about homicide.
Autopsies are required. Witnesses said the victims were facing the
shooters, but autopsies found that the bullets came from other
directions. You say that doesn't matter.

Two radicals went inside a moment before the shootings and emerged with
small wounds that they attributed to buckshot. They said they'd come
back out just in time to be shot. Told the guardsmen's only shotgun had
been loaded with birdshot and fired at the sky, they said in fact they'd
been hit by 30-06 rounds.

The first said the round had passed through his wrist at 20 yards. He
went about his business, checking on people, then noticed he was
bleeding. Did he seek help? Wrap it for pressure? Enter an adjacent
building? No, he said he walked a couple of hundred yards to the street,
then turned left and turned right at the next street. Down that street
he went into a building and rinsed his wrist in a water cooler. He says
then another student offered him a ride to the hospital. To this day, he
says the little marks on his wrist came from an M1 round that passed
through it.

The second said he'd just come back outside when an M1 round hit him in
the ass. Others helped him inside and he lay in a corridor. He got a
ride in the same ambulance that carried Krauss, who would die later from
the bullet that came in through her left side and tore up her heart. He
said he rode up front, sitting up.

He was very annoyed that the hospital staff treated him as if he hadn't
been wounded at all. He phoned his parents and they took him to a
distant hospital, in Cincinnati, I think. He was going to drop out
because nobody but the radicals liked him. They kept visiting, and he
returned for the fall semester. He said the doctors in Cincinnati had
discovered that the bullet in his ass had ricocheted down through his
thigh, shattering his femur. Not only had he ridden to the hospital
sitting on an M1 wound, he'd walked around on a shattered femur. Those
Kent State radicals were some mighty tough hombres!

Of course the were shot by M1's. Otherwise, they must have been prepared
in advance to go inside and get fake wounds at the same time other
students were murdered. That would mean a conspiracy. Only loons could
believe such gentlemen would participate in a conspiracy.

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 10:22:30 PM UTC-4, J Burns wrote:
.. There you have the lead up to the shooting.

I'd suggest that you read it again, but it wouldn't do any good. You're
not interested in facts, only the conclusions the talking heads gave
you. I commend you on your allegiance.


I should read it again? You should read it just once. You
claimed that Kent State was hippie chicks handing out flowers.
I showed you the facts of the real environment, the taunting of
law enforcement, disobeying law enforcement, throwing rocks,
bottles, looting, burning down the ROTC building, in the 3 days
before the shooting. Good grief.



The campus cops had always had good relations with the student body.
Rice was like Andy Griffith as Sheriff Taylor.

Again, the real facts, from Wikipedia:

Fri:
Trouble exploded in town around midnight, when people left a bar and began throwing beer bottles at police cars and breaking downtown storefronts. In the process they broke a bank window, setting off an alarm. The news spread quickly and it resulted in several bars closing early to avoid trouble. Before long, more people had joined the vandalism.

By the time police arrived, a crowd of 120 had already gathered. Some people from the crowd had already lit a small bonfire in the street. The crowd appeared to be a mix of bikers, students, and transient people. A few members of the crowd began to throw beer bottles at the police, and then started yelling obscenities at them. The entire Kent police force was called to duty as well as officers from the county and surrounding communities. Kent Mayor LeRoy Satrom declared a state of emergency, called Ohio Governor Jim Rhodes' office to seek assistance, and ordered all of the bars closed

Saturday, May 2[edit]

City officials and downtown businesses received threats, while rumors proliferated that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and university. Mayor Satrom met with Kent city officials and a representative of the Ohio Army National Guard. Following the meeting, Satrom made the decision to call Governor Rhodes and request that the National Guard be sent to Kent, a request that was granted. Because of the rumors and threats, Satrom believed that local officials would not be able to handle future disturbances.[7]

Sunday, May 3[edit]

During a press conference at the Kent firehouse, an emotional Governor Rhodes pounded on the desk[17] and called the student protesters un-American, referring to them as revolutionaries set on destroying higher education in Ohio. "We've seen here at the city of Kent especially, probably the most vicious form of campus oriented violence yet perpetrated by dissident groups. They make definite plans of burning, destroying, and throwing rocks at police, and at the National Guard and the Highway Patrol. This is when we're going to use every part of the law enforcement agency of Ohio to drive them out of Kent. We are going to eradicate the problem.

Around 8:00 pm, another rally was held on the campus Commons. By 8:45 pm the Guardsmen used tear gas to disperse the crowd, and the students reassembled at the intersection of Lincoln and Main, holding a sit-in with the hopes of gaining a meeting with Mayor Satrom and the university president, Robert White. At 11:00 p.m., the Guard announced that a curfew had gone into effect and began forcing the students back to their dorms. A few students were bayoneted by Guardsmen.[20
The dispersal process began late in the morning with campus patrolman Harold Rice,[23] riding in a National Guard Jeep, approaching the students to read them an order to disperse or face arrest. The protesters responded by throwing rocks, striking one campus patrolman and forcing the Jeep to retreat..[7]

Just before noon, the Guard returned and again ordered the crowd to disperse. When most of the crowd refused, the Guard used tear gas. Because of wind, the tear gas had little effect in dispersing the crowd, and some launched a second volley of rocks toward the Guard's line, to chants of, "Pigs off campus!" The students lobbed the tear gas canisters back at the National Guardsmen, who wore gas masks.

When it became clear that the crowd was not going to disperse, a group of 77 National Guard troops from A Company and Troop G, with bayonets fixed on their M1 Garand rifles, began to advance upon the hundreds of unarmed protesters.


Does that sound like Mayberry and Andy Griffith to you?




The guardsmen and the student body considered the illegal rally
harmless.

Obviously the above facts prove you're lying.



Canterbury, in civilian clothes, took the contingent to force the crowd
to move on. They followed the retreating demonstrators up a hill. In
removing stone throwers from the commons, it was a tactical success, but
it could be considered a strategic blunder by making the situation
interesting to demonstrators.

Why was he in civilian clothes?

A good example of what I was talking about. Conspiracy loons take
little nits, focus on anything other than the big picture to foster
bizarre conspiracy theories. That's their methods.




Years later, when he was out from under the order, Sergeant Shafer, a
fireman, contacted a reporter. Among other things, he expressed utter
contempt for Canterbury.


Wow, as if that somehow proves some conspiracy. Good grief.



So now you compare the troops to bank robbers, and, despite evidence to
the contrary, say the victims brought it on themselves. That's the
contempt the Nixon-Agnew team liked to engender among their disciples.

Now you're lying again. I'm not comparing troops to bank robbers.
I only said that in any chaotic situation, there is confusion among
some witnesses, some pieces that can never be fully explained
and if you focus on the nits, as the conspiracy loons do, then
I could do the same thing with a bank robbery. Ignore the big picture,
even lie about it, and dwell on the couple of witnesses who say there
were 3 bank robbers not 2, and try to turn that into a grand conspiracy
theory that someone other than the two actually robbed the bank.
THAT is exactly what you're doing. You even deny the violence,
the events at Kent that occurred in the several days and even
the minutes leading up to the shooting that set the very important
tense, hostile, background for what happened.

And yes, the victims had a role in bringing it on themselves. They knew
the were breaking the law by not dispersing. They choose to continue
to taunt, engage with law enforcement. Tear gas had already been used,
the protestors continued to throw rocks instead of leaving. Does that
justify them getting shot? No, but just like with all the other recent
cases where bad things happened to perps engaging with police, the perps
all set the environment for bad things to happen. It's like throwing
gasoline all over an old abandoned building, taunting people to come there,
and then when someone drops a cigarette and the place goes up, denying
that you bear any responsibility for what happened.




So witnesses see bank robbers fire and people are hit. In most places,
including Ohio, the law isn't as closed-minded as you about homicide.
Autopsies are required. Witnesses said the victims were facing the
shooters, but autopsies found that the bullets came from other
directions. You say that doesn't matter.

I'm saying all that was looked at, the law was applied, a grand jury
indicted 8 guardsmen, it proceeded through the legal system, and a
judge ultimately decided the case was to weak to proceed and dismissed it.
Does all the evidence add up? Probably not. Does it ever in any similar
chaotic situation? Rarely. Does that a conspiracy make? No.

Here is an excellent video interviewing both protesters and guardsmen
who were actually there. Several guardsmen clearly say they fired.
One describes aiming at, deliberately shooting one of the protesters
that was continuing to advance at him. Not one of them, including
students that were shot at, wounded, says anything
that differs from the official version of what happened. They all agree
that the guard aimed at them, fired at them. Not one raises any issue
of there being some mystery conspiracy sniper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K94oOhUcvHE

Just the facts.