Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Audio Analysis Brings New Revelations From Kent State Shooting

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the puzzling-evidence dept.

Crime 289

a_nonamiss writes "The Cleveland Plain Dealer is reporting today on new forensic analysis by audio scientists Stuart Allen and Tom Owen on a recently discovered audio tape from the Kent State shootings. The analysis suggests that four shots from a .38-caliber pistol were fired 70 seconds before the National Guard opened fire on a crowd of student protesters, killing four and wounding nine others. The alleged shooter, student Terry Norman, was hired by the FBI to take photos of the protesters. It has been known for some time that he had a .38-caliber pistol on his person the day of the shootings, but he has always claimed that the gun was not fired during the protest, a claim that was backed up in sworn testimony from authorities at the time."

cancel ×

289 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cause and Effect (1)

Knave75 (894961) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845198)

70 seconds seems like a substantial delay between an action and a provoked response

Re:Cause and Effect (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845230)

Yeah, that's as slow as the reactions in a soap opera.

Was this Hoover's rogue FBI? (3, Informative)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845240)

If it was Hoovers blackmailing rogue "evil" FBI, the same FBI that was doing cointel pro and using urban warfare tactics on the weathermen and black panthers, this is an FBI that could have easily incited this. They call them agent provocateurs. Their role is to incite violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur [wikipedia.org]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVNu9XWQob4 [youtube.com]

Re:Was this Hoover's rogue FBI? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845878)

That's not the problem. The problem is that 70 seconds is an eternity when it comes to modern firearms.

Re:Was this Hoover's rogue FBI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33846180)

The national guard had to reconcile the thought of shooting into a crowd of students against what they were told to do.

Re:Cause and Effect (5, Insightful)

a_nonamiss (743253) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845296)

Definitely a fair point. However, if someone starts waving a gun around and firing shots, that's a good way to whip up a crowd of angry people into a fury, where the guardsmen might have legitimately felt threatened. 70 seconds is probably too long for him to have been directly responsible, but just about the right amount of time to have been a crucial catalyst.

Re:Cause and Effect (5, Insightful)

D'Sphitz (699604) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845528)

But feeling threatened is no excuse to start picking off uninvolved, unarmed people hundreds of feet away at random. "Someone in the crowd may have a gun, so shoot them all to be safe"

Re:Cause and Effect (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845690)

I disagree. Sometimes people have to be shot and killed to teach future hippie dippies a lesson.

If some of these peaceniks or other radicals had been shot during those WTO riots, a lot less damage might have been caused, and they would think twice before messing with a cop. Society has gotten too soft these days.

Re:Cause and Effect (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845714)

kill yourself, fascist

Re:Cause and Effect (1, Insightful)

Spewns (1599743) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845860)

kill yourself, fascist

It's funny how this is marked troll but what he's responding to isn't. Society is doomed. (Yes, I just determined that by the mod behavior on Slashdot.)

Re:Cause and Effect (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845976)

I agree - I think the next time a bunch of elderly conservatives get together to whine about how it's unfair that Medicare will only buy them the same scooters as niggers, the cops should just shoot a few to teach them a lesson. That goes double for people implying they're planning to use "second amendment remedies" if their candidates don't win.

no firearms != unarmed (0, Troll)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 3 years ago | (#33846172)

Rocks, bottles, bricks... It happens all over the world, and it happened in Kent. Ever been hit in the face with a thrown rock? It won't just leave a bruise; you WILL require surgery, and pray to God you don't have a fractured skull or spinal column (the likely result if the rock busts through your teeth into your mouth).

Re:no firearms != unarmed (0, Flamebait)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 3 years ago | (#33846310)

So you think your fear entitles you to shoot everyone on sight, just in case. You wouldn't happen to be one of those looser who needs to pack a gun with him everywhere to compensate for his lack of spine, would you?

Re:Cause and Effect (1, Informative)

john82 (68332) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845644)

Remember that May 4th was not an isolated day. The tension had been building for several days. It actually started three days earlier on May 1st. The stand-off between "students" and various law enforcement orgs included throwing bottles, rocks and bricks at law enforcement. Btw, the "students" weren't all enrolled at Kent State.

So it wasn't just a case of the Guardsmen opening fire, for no reason, on peaceful demonstrating students. Should the Guardsmen been there at all? Probably not, but that was the decision Gov Rhodes made when the Mayor of Kent asked for help controlling the situation. Just understand that the "students" were part of what happened. It's not as black and white as it's been portrayed.

Re:Cause and Effect (3, Interesting)

dpilot (134227) | more than 3 years ago | (#33846100)

Grew up in the area, had friends that (later) went to KSU, was pre-HS at the time.

My father had a friend at work who had a daughter going to KSU. A few days before this got so bad, she called her dad, telling about what she heard from the apartment above. (thin walls, thin floors, cheap college rental) She heard the students there calling all over the US, lining up people to bring in to help with the protest. She was scared - her father picked her up and brought her home.

FBI response to information requests (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845670)

The alleged shooter, student Terry Norman, was hired by the FBI to take photos of the protesters

Reporter: We want to interview Terry Norman. Where is he?
FBI Liazon: He's deceased.
Reporter: Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. When did he die?
FBI Liazon: Tomorrow.

It pays to know older people (4, Interesting)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#33846176)

From an older friend who was around then and later was in the military, including the National Guard:

The Guardsmen waited until being given an order to fire. That wait causes a delay. This tape is not new, it has been around, used in various trials and news specials about the incident since 1970.

He is working on a blog post about it now.

Re:Cause and Effect (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845340)

70 seconds seems like a substantial delay between an action and a provoked response

Not really. It sounds like just about enough time for the chain-of-command to relay an order down to the troops to clear out the area with force.

Re:Cause and Effect (2, Informative)

multisync (218450) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845556)

It sounds like just about enough time for the chain-of-command to relay an order down to the troops to clear out the area with force.

\

Indeed. From TFA:

The audio tape also contains what Allen and fellow forensic acoustics expert Tom Owen believe is a command ordering the Guardsmen to prepare to fire ... Terry Gilbert, a Cleveland attorney who is advising Canfora, said their primary interest is the apparent order for the Guard to fire, but that the new revelations about the confrontation and pistol shots "add an interesting dimension because of the role the FBI might have played in the chain of events."

Re:Cause and Effect (3, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845830)

It doesn't mean it was HIS .38 firing. That's hardly an uncommon caliber.

Re:Cause and Effect (5, Informative)

multisync (218450) | more than 3 years ago | (#33846040)

It doesn't mean it was HIS .38 firing. That's hardly an uncommon caliber.

More from TFA:

Some witnesses claim they saw Norman fighting with several students and waving or pointing his gun

TV footage shortly after the shooting shows Norman running toward a cluster of Guardsmen and police, pursued by a man who yells that Norman has a gun and has shot someone. The TV film shows an emotional Norman hand his pistol to a Kent State patrolman and describe an assault by protesters.

The TV reporter and sound engineer say they saw a Kent State detective open the pistol's cylinder and heard him exclaim off-camera that it had been fired four times. Officers' written statements contended it was fully loaded and unfired.

The new analysis of the audio recording lends credibility to existing evidence that Norman fired *his* gun. It's no longer just a case of his word against that of a bunch of hippie protestors, and warrants the further investigation that is now taking place.

Re:Cause and Effect (4, Interesting)

john82 (68332) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845570)

My brother was a student at Kent State and there the day of the shooting. He had always insisted that the guards did not fire first.

Re:Cause and Effect (5, Insightful)

mspohr (589790) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845748)

Looks like the FBI fired first.

Re:Cause and Effect (3, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#33846088)

Han shot first.

Oh, sorry, wrong conversation.

Re:Cause and Effect (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#33846190)

Looks like the FBI fired first.

In the article it says that photographer was free-lance and sold photos to the FBI after events, not an FBI employee.

Re:Cause and Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33846212)

Everyone knows that Han shot first.

The whole thing could have been planned. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845216)

I don't and will never trust an informant. And if it's an informant then did the informant do this because the FBI wanted to give the national guard the excuse to fire? It almost seems too convenient.

70 seconds ??? (2, Interesting)

haus (129916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845220)

In a live fire situation 70 seconds may as well be next Tuesday.

Re:70 seconds ??? (3, Interesting)

moxley (895517) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845334)

It's true. The average gunfight lasts mere seconds...now, what happened an Kent State was anything but average, but still...over a minute?

There are so many things that are wrong with what happened that day, from all of the evidence, it looks to me and many others like this was orchestrated...someone wanted the anti war college students to be fired on, likely within the FBI - cointelpro, etc.

Re:70 seconds ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33846036)

It's true. The average gunfight lasts mere seconds...now, what happened an Kent State was anything but average, but still...over a minute?

There are so many things that are wrong with what happened that day, from all of the evidence, it looks to me and many others like this was orchestrated...someone wanted the anti war college students to be fired on, likely within the FBI - cointelpro, etc.

Of course, look who's still making hay over what happened at Kent State 40 years ago.

Re:70 seconds ??? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845494)

In a live fire situation 70 seconds may as well be next Tuesday.

This was 40 years ago. The Ohio National Guard was equipped only with muzzle loaders then and 70 seconds was a quite rapid time to load and fire. Its a good thing they didn't bring in the trebuchets.

Re:70 seconds ??? (2, Insightful)

bcmm (768152) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845498)

It's suspected that the Guard believed Norman's shots to be sniper fire. It could've put them on edge, ready to overreact to something else.

Re:70 seconds ??? (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845634)

It's suspected that the Guard believed Norman's shots to be sniper fire.

Sniper fire from a .38 Special revolver? Not likely. Doesn't even sound similar. It's more likely they fired because they were ordered to [cleveland.com] .

Re:70 seconds ??? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845744)

lets see how your live gun shot recognition works when you are surrounded by an angry crowd throwing rocks at you, that you were sent to control.

i suppose in your scenario it would have all gone like this...
guard: hey we have just been shot at, someones trying to snipe us
guard 2: no moron that is only a .38 special, nothing to worry about at all, it only stings a little.

Re:70 seconds ??? (2, Informative)

leonardluen (211265) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845784)

First definition i found for "sniper" - "a marksman who shoots at people from a concealed place"

I see nothing in that definition that indicates what style of gun they need to use. granted revolvers aren't accurate at long range but that doesn't preclude them from the definition above.

Re:70 seconds ??? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845838)

Indeed. Someone could even get silly and stick a 2x (or greater) optic on the revolver. There's a popular photo (and/or shop) of a kitten with one... I'm sure you've seen it.

Re:70 seconds ??? (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845884)

Optics on revolvers don't help for shots hundreds of feet away, they're just not that accurate. Even mounting one in a clamp to adjust the sights only buys limited accuracy at longer distances. (I've done this, working with a friend to calibrate his laser sights: it was fascinating to learn about.)

The kitten picture you're referring to is this one, I think: http://www.funny.co.uk/stuff/art_175-2815-Sniper-Kitten.html [funny.co.uk] . It's not a pistol, it's a plastic toy. It is a very funny picture: if I'm not mistaken, that firearm is a model of the sniper rifle from Halo.

Re:70 seconds ??? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845998)

Bah. Damn brain getting confused. Well, that's no revolver :P

Still - even if the accuracy sucks it could still be considered sniping. Nobody said it had to be good... you could get lucky (or if your plan was to cause disruption... mission accomplished)

Re:70 seconds ??? (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 3 years ago | (#33846330)

Optics on revolvers don't help for shots hundreds of feet away, they're just not that accurate.

Isn't that partly because of the typical combination of bullet size, amount of gunpowder, and barrel length in a revolver? My granddad had an S&W .22 Jet revolver which I believe came from the factory with an optical sight. It was intended for use as a "varmint gun" on farms. It looked like a full-size .357 or .44 magnum (long barrel, etc.), and the cartridge size was (IIRC) the same as a .357 magnum, but necked down to fit a .22 bullet, so it was almost like a pistol configured to fire 5.56mm rifle rounds. Supposedly it was pretty accurate at range (at least for a pistol), but the design had a problem with the cartridges jamming in the cylinder.

Re:70 seconds ??? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845886)

Concealment usually implies distance.

Distance means you need a more accurate weapon.

That pretty much eliminates pistols. It also eliminates a lot of rifles too.

Re:70 seconds ??? (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845846)

Go to a rifle or pistol range and close your eyes, and I'm sure you can distinguish the sounds of a small pistol from a high velocity, high accuracy rifle. Higher muzzle velocity, longer barrel, more explosive involved, etc. all make the sound different. But a few isolated shots across hundreds of feet of distance, in a noisy environment with angry protesters and loudspeaakers in action raising the noise floor, wearing a helmet? That seems extremely unlikely to allow such a clear distinction: the "sniper" could simply be further away than the pistol wielder.

Re:70 seconds ??? (4, Funny)

sco08y (615665) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845876)

It's suspected that the Guard believed Norman's shots to be sniper fire.

Sniper fire from a .38 Special revolver? Not likely. Doesn't even sound similar.

"Don't worry about those bullets coming from an unknown shooter, men, they're only 38's!"

Re:70 seconds ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33846188)

Dude, watch the buzzkill for the monday morning conspiracy theorists.

Re:70 seconds ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33846300)

Sound similar? Just how well trained do you think the National Guard is?

Re:70 seconds ??? (2, Informative)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#33846316)

There isn't much way to distinguish caliber that precisely (unless the same ammo is fired AT you from a distance day after day).

Further, .38 Special RIFLES have been available for many years before Kent State. It's an OLD (1899) cartridge. If you hear the report, and it's not outgoing, it's not unreasonable to assume it's incoming.

Re:70 seconds ??? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845882)

.38 is hardly uncommon. How do we know it was Norman's that we (now) can hear?

flowers to a gun fight (4, Insightful)

dlt074 (548126) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845232)

hmm FBI employee shoots his weapon to get something started and then plausibly denys it. nothing to see here.

on that note. never take a flower to a gun fight. when an armed person(legal authority or otherwise) tells you to stop, leave, get out of his face, and you don't have a weapon. you leave, period. you don't just stay there thinking they are not going to shoot you because you are "peaceful". they don't know that and they probably don't care.

Employee or Informant? (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845260)

Which is it?

Re:Employee or Informant? (3, Informative)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#33846214)

Neither. The article says he would sell pictures to the FBI after events. Freelance photographer.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845322)

Absolutely. Obey authority. Always. Because they will kill you if you do not.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845350)

Absolutely. Obey authority. Always. Because they will kill you if you do not.

WRONG

He said don't go unarmed.

I bet you're against the Second Amendment being interpreted as an individual right, too, aren't you? Now do you see WHY there's a Second Amendment, and why it is an INDIVIDUAL right?

Re:flowers to a gun fight (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845428)

Lovely. Conservatives murder hippie protesters and then use that murder to point out that it wouldn't have happened if everyone would have been armed. You forgot to mention that if taxes weren't so high, the government wouldn't have been able to pay for the Guard to murder the hippies. Really, it was their bad politics that lead to them being shot at since no conservatives were being shot at by the National Guard that day.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845508)

Lovely. Conservatives murder hippie protesters and then use that murder to point out that it wouldn't have happened if everyone would have been armed. You forgot to mention that if taxes weren't so high, the government wouldn't have been able to pay for the Guard to murder the hippies. Really, it was their bad politics that lead to them being shot at since no conservatives were being shot at by the National Guard that day.

Stupid straw man, but that bolded part is TRUE, now isn't it?

Here's another stupid straw man: "progressives" vote for minimum wage laws in order to price lower-skilled workers out of the labor market and create a multi-generational underclass that's dependent upon government handouts for survival. Try poking holes in THAT without utterly ignoring a basic economic theory called supply-and-demand.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845622)

SHOTGUN MOUTHWASH.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845684)

Your mouthwash smells like teen spirit.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845716)

Courtney Love would like it.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845660)

GP is also willfully oblivious to STATE part of Kent State. Meaning.. if taxes weren't so high, the "liberals" wouldn't be able to pay for public universities such as Kent State, and therefore there wouldn't have been a place for the hippies to be murdered. And we wouldn't also now have a system that all but requires a college degree to be competitive. While loading down much of the populace with debts at a time when income is typically lowest, and then burdened by taxes to pay for other people to end up in the same situation.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845910)

And we wouldn't also now have a system that all but requires a college degree to be competitive. While loading down much of the populace with debts at a time when income is typically lowest, and then burdened by taxes to pay for other people to end up in the same situation.

The reason college is so expensive and ubiquitous is because liberals demanded student loan programs. These increased demand and demand elasticity, which have inflated the price of a college education.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the tuition bubble bursts, but I'm going to guess that you'll blame conservatives for that, too.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33846024)

I agree. If you aren't born into wealth you have no place at an institution of higher learning.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#33846194)

Your right because everyone should be able to live off of 3 dollars an hour.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845624)

Lovely. Conservatives murder hippie protesters and then use that murder to point out that it wouldn't have happened if everyone would have been armed. You forgot to mention that if taxes weren't so high, the government wouldn't have been able to pay for the Guard to murder the hippies. Really, it was their bad politics that lead to them being shot at since no conservatives were being shot at by the National Guard that day.

Huh? A crazy conspiracy theory about an abusive government is an argument AGAINST the Second Amendment being an individual right? When the entire purpose of that Amendment was to allow the populace to protect itself against tyrannical acts by the government?

"The EVIL CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT killed innocent unarmed people just so forty years later other EVIL CONSERVATIVES could support a claim that the Second Amendment is an individual right! It's a CONSPIRACY!!!!"

Ooooh-kay.

Even IF true, that's hardly an argument against the Second Amendment guaranteeing an individual right to bear arms. Hell, the more evil and tyrannical you make the goverment out to be, the MORE important that individual right becomes. You just stepped on your own crank with golf shoes, buddy.

And your irrelevant mental contortions are definitely amusing.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (4, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845674)

Conservatives murder hippie protesters

It is this polarization between parties that results in nothing being accomplished in America. Blanket statements like that are A) False, unless you can confirm that everybody that landed a bullet was a conservative, B) Begging the questions, for them to be murderers renders them shooters, for them to be shooters renders them conservative, for them to be conservative renders them against hippie protesters, round and round we go.

How about just saying that the Man fucked up. Screw party affiliation. If we are always blaming left or right, we will always get screwed up the middle by both. Stop viewing the world through the R-D filter and start viewing it as us (people) vs them (people we elect). Oh wait.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (1)

coldmist (154493) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845926)

Thinking About Freedom
Robert LeFevre
The Freeman, February 1983, p. 115

                Could I control others by a simple exercise of my own will I would have no reason to inflict control, punishment or death upon another of my kind. Since my wishes would control others, each and every person would gladly do my bidding. Unhappily, for me, this isn’t true.
                Every other person has the same kind of control I have and is as eager for me to act as he wishes, as I am to have him act as I wish.
                The result is conflict. And from the days of Plato to Marx, stretching backward and forward from those polarities, the pages of the human record run red with blood and echo with the cries of anguish emitted by those who, at the moment, found themselves under the sway of some human being not content with self-management; seeking always to manage others in a way nature has not bargained for.

It's not "man", in general, but men that want to have some "kind of control" and "is ... eager for me to act as he wishes".

Most men don't have such ambitions. For some reason (the ability to actually exert this power over others), politics draws these kinds of men out.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (5, Insightful)

HiThere (15173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845944)

Or how about noticing that "left" and "right" are pretty much media inventions. To make politics easy to explain using sports metaphors. Yay for our team!

What this was, was people in power manipulating a situation to disadvantage people without power, and masses of people accepting the explanation, because they didn't have much choice, and anyway only one side was really heard. (Different sides in different places, but still only one side.)

It was after this that it coincidentally happened that all the major publishers started being acquired by major corporations...which wasn't a directly profitable action, publishing being relatively unprofitable. But which did mean that those publishers wouldn't print anything that the major corporations didn't approve of. (At least nothing they strongly disapproved of. The control was, and remains, indirect. The management chooses the editor who chooses what to publish.)
In this context it's worth noting that demonstrations now get minimal coverage in any media. This despite the fact that one would expect them to be more newsworthy as that occur less frequently.

Note that this is not a unanimous group. To call this a conspiracy is probably incorrect. It's merely that people in a position of power have certain interests in common that are not the same as the interests of people who are not in a position of power. And they tend to act to forward those interests.

Another thing that happened at around this time was that the political process was nominally loosened by allowing the easier formation of political parties while simultaneously centralized by removing the requirement that broadcasting stations allow equal amounts of partisan campaigning by all parties. This made money the central requirement for being heard. (It had already become a major requirement.)

Also note that in the US the election system (primarily, but not entirely, the means used to count the votes) is so structured that only two parties have a reasonable chance to win an election. There have been only a few times when an incumbent party became so weak that it essentially abdicated it's position to an alternate third party. Even Teddy Rooseveldt wasn't able to overcome this bias. I *think* that Instant Runoff would be quite superior, and I'm quite convinced that Condorcet voting would be superior. And, yes, it's true that it can be proven that no fair voting system can exist, but this doesn't mean that some aren't better than others. And the majority rule system is about the worst. (Not as bad as minority rule, of course.)

Re:flowers to a gun fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33846094)

It is this polarization between parties that results in nothing being accomplished in America.

That's the whole point of the system. It seems you view this as a bad thing.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845654)

He said don't go unarmed.

Or, how about don't get in a gunfight with unarmed people carrying flowers?

Re:flowers to a gun fight (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845328)

never take a flower to a gun fight

Nor should you throw rocks, bricks, and bottles at a group of people carrying rifles. If anyone provoked the shooting it was the students. Deadly force was probably not justified at the point it was used, but the confrontations had been pretty violent for several days leading up to the shooting.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845894)

Indeed. It's hardly a peaceful protest if people are shouting and throwing dangerous objects about.

If you are throwing anything besides a flower, expect retaliation.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845358)

Depends what your goal is. If your goal is to get out of there alive then sure. If your goal is to make a point, then no.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845402)

Government agents infiltrate situations or causes to instigate and manufacture threats, violence, or confusion in order to promote or convince the rest of the country to condone action against said infiltrated group? Tell me it ain't so?

Also, in other news, the sky is blue.

It baffles me how people just accept the stories they are fed without ever questioning them. It is downright sickening to see how people just open their heads and let things just pour in, unchecked.

Next thing you know, someone is going to suggest that governments spread stories through the media outlets or back actual actions -- either of which promote suspicion of and urgency in dealing with foreign threats to justify taking action on a national level -- from sanctions to blockades and tariffs to military action against them....!

Re:flowers to a gun fight (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845568)

Jesus you're off your rocker. So the Kent state students had it coming. How can you classify a clash between civilians and their government as a gun fight?

Does anyone know the exact moment that a police officer is authorized to use their weapon in a situation like this?

Re:flowers to a gun fight (1)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845796)

I don't think he's saying that the students had it coming. He's saying that, in a direct conflict between you and the machinery of the state, there are two outcomes: You fleeing, and you dead. Don't make the mistake of believing that, because you're peaceful, they won't shoot. As this story demonstrates, they'll do whatever they have to, to create a provocation that lets them shoot you.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845904)

There's a third option you missed: the machinery breaks.

It's happened before, and could happen again.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (2, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845614)

Two words: Tank Man [wikipedia.org] . Or more generally, "resist oppression." Take your pick.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845630)

on that note. never take a flower to a gun fight.

Don't tell Ghandi.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845798)

Or Gandhi.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845948)

I think you're missing the point of the protests we had in this country during the Viet Nam War.

Bring the flower. Then stand your ground.

Since WW2, which as far as I know was as "just" as a war can be, we've fought war after war and yet we've never actually been attacked. That crap has to stop.

Viet Nam didn't attack us, neither did Laos or Combodia. Grenada? Iraq? We're bombing Pakistan almost daily. The first Iraq war maybe, this current one was a con. 19 guys from Saudi Arabia commit a crime and we attack two countries?

The few people that have gone the non-violent peaceful route have changed the world. The problem is there's too many people hiding at home and not enough Ghandi's and Martin Luther King's.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 3 years ago | (#33846138)

Bring the flower. Then stand your ground.

And be prepared to go to jail (or worse) for your beliefs. Ghandi and MLK were.

Re:flowers to a gun fight (3, Interesting)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845986)

Your statement is very strange. The Kent State shooting contributed directly to the US withdrawal from Vietnam by showing the callousness of the Nixon administration and the unjustness of those calling protests "un-American". By remaining, and being shot, they actually helped end the war by exposing the criminal and callous behavior of those leading the war.

Shooting unarmed protesters has, repeatedly, triggered national changes of policy in favor of the people who were shot. Look up "Crispus Attucks" for an example at the core of the US revolution against British rule.

Not a direct provocation, but... (2, Interesting)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845290)

The article states that there is video evidence of Terry Norman being chased by someone claiming he shot someone, running away and handing his gun to an officer that opens it and states that it's been fired 4 times. This before, as the article calls it, "the volley". The most empathetic suggestion would be that Terry was attacked physically, then answered with shooting. This wouldn't have been a direct provocation to open fire, but it would have increased tensions quite a bit, obviously. In no way would he be directly responsible for triggering the massacre.

Re:Not a direct provocation, but... (4, Insightful)

a_nonamiss (743253) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845366)

I am far more bothered by the fact that a) Mr. Norman was on the payroll of the FBI at the time and b) authorities (may have) lied under oath about the fact that Mr. Norman discharged his weapon during the protest. This implies that the FBI was at least indirectly involved in the massacre and directly involved in the cover-up.

I'll give you that Mr. Norman probably didn't directly trigger the massacre, although shooting a gun in a crowd of angry people probably didn't contribute to happy peaceful feelings at the protest. However, the government at the time seems to have actively and knowingly participated in a cover-up. This bothers me a lot. It should bother everyone. A lot.

Re:Not a direct provocation, but... (3, Insightful)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845446)

Ja, maybe you are right. Not to be surly, but we outside of the US sort of take for granted that all US cops are gung-ho people who "do whatever it takes", and cook up their own solutions and conspiracies to solve everything.

Re:Not a direct provocation, but... (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845786)

Then you, like some people here, take it for granted wrong by a huge percentage.

Re:Not a direct provocation, but... (4, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845908)

Spend any time with the justice system and you will see this for yourself.

It's not just Hollywood nonsense. Cops actually act like this. It's probably not limited to American cops either.

Cops won't even make their lies terribly believable. They benefit greatly from the respect they get from most people.

Re:Not a direct provocation, but... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#33846028)

Not to be surly, but we outside of the US sort of take for granted that all US cops are gung-ho people who "do whatever it takes", and cook up their own solutions and conspiracies to solve everything.

You've been watching too many cop shows on TV.

Re:Not a direct provocation, but... (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#33846096)

And presumably because we only hear about U.S. policework through incidents like this.

Re:Not a direct provocation, but... (4, Informative)

bcmm (768152) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845466)

The article states that there is video evidence of Terry Norman being chased by someone claiming he shot someone, running away and handing his gun to an officer that opens it and states that it's been fired 4 times.

Read more carefully. While the officer was seen opening Norman's gun by a camera crew, it seems they weren't filming at the time. The reason the new analysis is interesting is that it contradicts the FBI's claim that that gun was not fired, while matching up well with eyewitness accounts ("oh my God, he fired four times") which were made by people with no knowledge of the tape.

Re:Not a direct provocation, but... (1)

honkycat (249849) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845742)

True, though the people who made the tapes may well have had knowledge of the eyewitness accounts, so it's not as convincing as two completely independent conclusions. It's possible that those doing the audio analysis were influenced (whether consciously or not) by what they were looking for.

Should Have Shot Them All (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845534)

Should have shot all of the traitors.

Except where would Obama get his advisors?

Re:Should Have Shot Them All (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845596)

Should have shot all of the traitors.

Except where would Obama get his advisors?

if you think shooting "traitors", such as those college kids, is acceptable, then shouldn't you be shot now for your opposition to Obama?

nice logic!

Re:Should Have Shot Them All (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845836)

The flaw in your argument is that Obama is a socialist nigger, thus treason does not apply.

Re:Should Have Shot Them All (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845966)

Socialist niggers need the most love (money) so we can turn them into corporatist crackers. In Obama's case, since he is half-white, this is very possible.

So you're still a traitor who needs to be shot, per your own logic.

Does this mean... (3, Funny)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845594)

Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young will need to revise their lyrics?

Re:Does this mean... (2, Informative)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#33846020)

They're Neil's lyrics -- and why would he need to revise them? She's still dead on the ground.

And this Terry fellow could very well be described as a Tin Soldier. ...that said, I'm still not sure what the President's orgasms had to do with that shooting.

Great when the truth finally comes out... (1)

dtjohnson (102237) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845740)

It may have been 40 years ago but it was a major event in US History that still reverberates today so it's wonderful when the truth of what happened is finally, finally revealed. The protesters wanted to believe that the guardsmen opened fire for no reason. The guardsmen wanted to believe that the protesters were trying to shoot them. In the end, the shootings were provoked by Norman who should be tracked down and prosecuted to the extent possible. Maybe, someday, the truth will also come out about the other major shootings from that era: JFK (1963), RFK (1968), and ML King (1968).

What caliber was used on the students? (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845764)

What did ballistic forensics say was the caliber of the bullets that killed the students? Won't this show if the .38 pistol was used?

Re:What caliber was used on the students? (4, Informative)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845912)

No one, the Ohio National Guard included, is debating whether the guard opened fired and killed protesters. This is unequivocally true. The question here is whether sometime before the guardsmen open fire if someone else in the crowd fired shots contributing to the shooting by either riling the crowd towards violence or causing the guardsmen to feel threatened and thus clear the area with violence or both.

Ohio Gov. James Rhodes still a criminal (2, Interesting)

Ice Station Zebra (18124) | more than 3 years ago | (#33845898)

For ordering the Ohio National Guard to be at Kent State. Maybe I'll go spit on his grave today.

Known for years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33845922)

It's been known for years that the national guard did not fire first. Yet liberals and liberal TV channels keep showing the same old documentaries which are lies.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>