Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime United States

Audio Analysis Brings New Revelations From Kent State Shooting 289

Posted by timothy
from the puzzling-evidence dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Audio Analysis Brings New Revelations From Kent State Shooting

Comments Filter:
  • 70 seconds seems like a substantial delay between an action and a provoked response
    • by reboot246 (623534)
      Yeah, that's as slow as the reactions in a soap opera.
    • by elucido (870205) * on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:00AM (#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]

      • by jedidiah (1196)

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

    • by a_nonamiss (743253) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:10AM (#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.
      • by D'Sphitz (699604) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:53AM (#33845528) Journal
        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"
      • 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.

      • by Suki I (1546431) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @12:39PM (#33846176) Homepage Journal
        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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by multisync (218450)

        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

        • Re:Cause and Effect (Score:4, Interesting)

          by X0563511 (793323) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @11:50AM (#33845830) Homepage Journal

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

          • Re:Cause and Effect (Score:5, Informative)

            by multisync (218450) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @12:24PM (#33846040) Journal

            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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by john82 (68332) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @11:05AM (#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.

      • by mspohr (589790) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @11:32AM (#33845748)
        Looks like the FBI fired first.
        • by Nerdfest (867930) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @12:29PM (#33846088)
          Han shot first.

          Oh, sorry, wrong conversation.
        • by Suki I (1546431)

          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: (Score:2, Troll)

          by DesScorp (410532)

          Looks like the FBI fired first.

          Based on what, besides your paranoid conspiracy theories? The photographer wasn't an FBI agent, he essentially took a free lance job from them. And this tape doesn't necessarily prove that HE was the shooter, just that someone fired 38 caliber bullets before the National Guard opened fire.

          People here keep assuming that it was some federal conspiracy, when it's more likely it was the work of some radical students. This WAS the era of the SDS and Weathermen, after all. It's not like there weren't any students

  • 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 ??? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by haus (129916) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @09:57AM (#33845220) Homepage Journal

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

    • Re:70 seconds ??? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by moxley (895517) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:17AM (#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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bcmm (768152)
      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.
      • by russotto (537200)

        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: (Score:3, Informative)

          by leonardluen (211265)

          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.

          • by X0563511 (793323)

            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.

            • 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, th

              • by X0563511 (793323)

                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)

              • by blincoln (592401)

                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 neck

                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  Well, yes. If you make the barrel of a pistol 2 feet long, you start looking like Jack Nicholson as the Joker handling it. You'll increase the muzzle velocity and reduce the tumbling, so your maximum range will increase. Of course, since your hand always wobbles somewhat, even for a skilled shooter with a 2-handed grip, your grouping will be awful at significant distances, even if your bullets and barrel are the equivalent of a rifle's.

                  A quick search shows pages like this (http://home.inreach.com/marine/usm

              • by Kreigaffe (765218)

                There's plenty of people who can shoot near-MOA groups at 100 yards with a revolver. That's 300 feet. That's "hundreds of feet" in other words. There's plenty of people who can shoot more accurately at 100 yards with a handgun than an AK-47 is capable of shooting at 100 yards (of course, with deference to very accurate AKs -- some of them have been worked on and can shoot fairly well, but even the 'accurized' sniper-variant AKs that you can find being used to snipe US troops abroad tend more towards a 2"

          • by jedidiah (1196)

            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.

            • by hairyfeet (841228)
              While there is no way in hell you could ever snipe with a snub .38, a long barrel .357 would probably be accurate to about 200 yards which gives room for concealment, so yeah, you could probably snipe with the right pistol. Of course you better have strong forearms because that heifer kicks like a mule. As for TFA it smells like COINTELPRO to me. You have to remember Hoover's FBI had NO problem with executing American citizens they considered...what's the word?...oh yeah uppity. For an example see Fred Ham [wikipedia.org]
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by AK Marc (707885)
              You assume accuracy when the situation didn't require it. Simply firing could have been sufficient, and firing into a crowd requires no accuracy at all.
        • 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" c

        • by sco08y (615665) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @11:59AM (#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: (Score:3, Informative)

          by couchslug (175151)

          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.

      • by X0563511 (793323)

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

  • by dlt074 (548126) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @09:58AM (#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.

    • Which is it?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:14AM (#33845322)

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

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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.

          • by cosm (1072588) <thecosm3 AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday October 09, 2010 @11:20AM (#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.

            • by coldmist (154493)

              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 ha

            • by HiThere (15173) <charleshixsnNO@SPAMearthlink.net> on Saturday October 09, 2010 @12:12PM (#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.)

          • by DesScorp (410532)

            First off, with that reply, it's no wonder you posted AC. It was truly cowardly.

            Second, when it came to "hippie protestors" in the 60's, they were often joined by fellow protestors whose intent wasn't quite so peaceful. [wikipedia.org].

        • by hairyfeet (841228)
          You know, I'm in the south and as pro second amendment as they come, but they have fully auto M16s, F series aircraft, and tanks. You got a rifle. You have NO chance in hell pal. The ONLY way you would be anything other than a nice bullseye if the shit hits the fan is if the National Guard turns and joins the people, thus handing out those nice tanks and stingers. Considering I have friends in the military and they take words like "Honor" and "The Constitution" VERY seriously, that is certainly a possibilit
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • by X0563511 (793323)

        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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by couchslug (175151)

        It's worth pointing out that in those days, there were no non-lethal weapons that were very effective. A rifle and a bayonet deter only by credible threat of use, and when that doesn't work, the operator either loses the field or uses the weapons.

    • by Seumas (6865) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:28AM (#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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Speare (84249)
      Two words: Tank Man [wikipedia.org]. Or more generally, "resist oppression." Take your pick.
    • by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @12:18PM (#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.

  • by Securityemo (1407943) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:09AM (#33845290) Journal
    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.
    • by a_nonamiss (743253) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:21AM (#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.
      • by Securityemo (1407943) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:36AM (#33845446) Journal
        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.
        • Then you, like some people here, take it for granted wrong by a huge percentage.
          • by jedidiah (1196) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @12:06PM (#33845908) Homepage

            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.

          • Citation needed:
          • when a police officer in my town testifies against another police officer for crimes committed while on duty in open court, not as part of a plea bargain, i will change my opinion on that.

            in other words, as a citizen confronted with the continued silence by 'good' cops on the crimes of the 'bad' cops one must assume all cops to be 'bad'. because if one cop decides to cave in your skull you cannot count on another cop to ever act as an agent of the law on your behalf, quite the opposite, in fact.
          • by AK Marc (707885)
            So it's only 99% of the time and not 100% of the time?

            I've never met a cop that didn't separate the world into two camps, cops and criminals. And anyone that is "clean" just hasn't been caught. You might assert such cops exist, but I've never met one.
        • 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.

      • by c6gunner (950153)

        a) Mr. Norman was on the payroll of the FBI at the time

        [citation needed]

        • Happy, to oblige, from TFA.

          Norman was on campus the day of the protests, wearing a gas mask and and a .38-caliber pistol for protection. He was photographing demonstrators and said he regularly sold the photos to the FBI and the Kent State police department.

          (Emphasis is mine)

    • by bcmm (768152) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:40AM (#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.

      • by honkycat (249849)

        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.

  • Actual story (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sara Chan (138144) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:20AM (#33845362)
    Here is a direct link to the actual story in the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "Kent State tape indicates altercation and pistol fire preceded National Guard shootings (audio) [cleveland.com]"
    --it should have been in TFS.
  • by mswhippingboy (754599) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @11:09AM (#33845594)
    Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young will need to revise their lyrics?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      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.

  • 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 othe

  • 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?

    • by kevinNCSU (1531307) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @12:07PM (#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.
  • For ordering the Ohio National Guard to be at Kent State. Maybe I'll go spit on his grave today.

  • cointelpro (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sixsixtysix (1110135)
    my guess is that the shooter was hired by the fbi's cointelpro unit and purposely fired the shots in order to get the desired response of overzealous national guardsmen.

Mr. Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing.

Working...