New Audio Tape Reveals Order to Fire On Kent State Protesters

New Audio Tape Reveals Order to Fire On Kent State Protesters

www.abcnews.go.com

A man who was shot in the wrist when National Guard troops killed four Kent State University students during an anti-war demonstration says he has found an audiotape that reveals someone gave a command to fire.

Alan Canfora wants the government to reopen the 37-year-old case because he thinks it will give both the victims and shooters a chance to heal.

We're not seeking revenge; we're not seeking punishment for the Guardsmen at this late date," Canfora said Monday.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.yahoo.com
www.boston.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
www.boston.com...
12 Things You Are Not Supposed To Know

[edit on 2-5-2007 by UM_Gazz]

I remember Kent State like it was yesterday and still can recall the outrage and sense of loss I felt at the news that four students had been killed by National Guard troops durinfg an anti-war protest.
THe Kent State Massacre, as it has come to be known by some, became, really the last gasp of organized stiudent protests on colloge campuses around the country, due in large part to the fear that National Guard troops would not hesitate to use the same force again.

I truly hope that the release of this tape, if it indeed proves out the protesters claims that NAtional Guard troops were ordered to open fire, will serve as a means to finally close the books on an incident that has troubled many of us who were alive at that time.

www.abcnews.go.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I wasnt alive when this happened but I have heard about the story...I'm surprised b/c I thought it had been pretty much established that the gaurds were ordered to fire? Or was just that most people assumed that to be the case but its not part of the official story yet?

People who throw rocks and bottles at armed soldiers should expect to be shot at.

Originally posted by RWPBR
People who throw rocks and bottles at armed soldiers should expect to be shot at.

Thats like me saying 'well what you said was ignorant so im gonna hit you' You see how the level of force isnt equal? They are only allowed to use the minimal force needed. If they werent shooting at them..then the cops shouldnt have shot at those kids.

Originally posted by RWPBR
People who throw rocks and bottles at armed soldiers should expect to be shot at.

THere was no throwing of rocks or bottles; it was an entirely peaceful demonstration until the dean of student s called in the National Guard and gave orders to move on the demonstrators. There was no need for the Guard or for police, except ifor minimal crowd control. Sure, there were shouted insults and there was anger over the war, but there was no provacation on the part of the students.

Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
I wasnt alive when this happened but I have heard about the story...I'm surprised b/c I thought it had been pretty much established that the gaurds were ordered to fire? Or was just that most people assumed that to be the case but its not part of the official story yet?

No, it hasn't been part of the official story, until now. Previously, the accepted story was that one of the guardsmen either inadverdently or purposely, fired at a single demonstrator and then all of the other guard members opened fire, as well. There was always the inferrence that it was a terrible "mistake" but that no one knowingly tried to kill anybody.

There was a trial four years after the shootings of several guardsmen on charges of manslaughter and all of thm were aquitted. There has been an awful lot of unresolved pain and loss in the Kent area for over 35 years; maybe if this is the real deal and the truth can finally come out, then maybe there can be some healing.

Here is a link to an in-depth history and description of that day 36 years ago, this friday. Kent State Shootings I probably should have included this in my first OP.

Not Exactly Giving Peace A Chance

Originally posted by Stormrider
THere was no throwing of rocks or bottles; it was an entirely peaceful demonstration until the dean of student s called in the National Guard and gave orders to move on the demonstrators.

This statement appears to be at odds with the account cited in the Wikipedia article:

When the National Guard arrived in town that evening, a large demonstration was already under way and the campus Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) building (which had been boarded up and scheduled for demolition) was burning. The arsonists were never caught. No one was hurt in the fire. More than a thousand protesters surrounded the building and cheered the building's burning. While attempting to extinguish the fire, several Kent firemen and police officers were hit with rocks and other objects by those standing near the fire. More than one fire engine company had to be called in because protesters carried the fire hose into the Commons and slashed it.[1][2][3] Again, a call for assistance went out. At 10:00 p.m., the National Guard entered the campus for the first time and set up camp directly on campus. There were many arrests made, tear gas was used, and at least one student was wounded with a bayonet.[4]

Although the circumstances surrounding the shootings themselves were somewhat disturbing and disproportionate, the situation the National Guard was sent into doesn't seem very peaceful to me.

Originally posted by Majic
Although the circumstances surrounding the shootings themselves were somewhat disturbing and disproportionate, the situation the National Guard was sent into doesn't seem very peaceful to me.

Majic, Thanks for your interest. THe incident you noted happened the night before the shootings and yes it was pretty rowdy but even then the only ones injured were students. Also, when I stated that there was no bottle and rock throwing, I was referring to the protest on May 4th, prior to the arrival of National Guard troops.



(Mod edit: You don't need to quote the whole post. It's right there above this one. --Majic)

[edit on 5/2/2007 by Majic]

I remember Kent State quite clearly. If you think it was a bunch of peaceful kids holding hands, eating granola and singing Kum-Bye-Ya you are sadly mistaken.

Originally posted by RWPBR
I remember Kent State quite clearly. If you think it was a bunch of peaceful kids holding hands, eating granola and singing Kum-Bye-Ya you are sadly mistaken.

Please, look at all of my posts and links and tell me when I ever gave the impression that the protesters were holding hands and eating granola? Demonstrations can feature angry protesters, loud speeches and even vulgar comments regarding the government and the police and still be a "peaceful" protest. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the protesters at Kent State had a constitutional right to assemble and seek a redress of their grievances. Just because you don't agree witha particular point of view doesn't make it wrong.

If you look at the history of anti-war and civil rights protests in this country it is apparent that being "peaceful" is no guarantee against police brutality and vilotaions of the protesters own civil rights. Even if a protest turns ugly and rocks are thrown, the use of deadly force is inexcusable. If you bothered to read any of the supporting links you would know that the National Guard troops did not fire on the students that were the nearest to them but at students who were up to 900 feet away; students who were not even a part of the earlier demonstration.

[edit on 5/2/2007 by Stormrider]

Originally posted by Stormrider
Demonstrations can feature angry protesters, loud speeches and even vulgar comments regarding the government and the police and still be a "peaceful" protest.

Correct. However that does not describe the Kent State protests.

At Kent State, the protests included violence, arson, destruction of property, interference with law enforcement, and emergency services, as noted from the excerpt quoted by Majic below.

Originally posted by majicWhile attempting to extinguish the fire, several Kent firemen and police officers were hit with rocks and other objects by those standing near the fire

Originally posted by Stormrider
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the protesters at Kent State had a constitutional right to assemble and seek a redress of their grievances.

In light of the situation the University officials made sure the students knew that all on campus demonstrations were canceled and prohibited while the National Guard was on duty on the campus. The campus has a right, in deciding what is best for it's students, to temporarily make such a decision. No one was attempting to take their right to assemble, nor their freedom of speech from them. They could have rallied and protested and voiced their grievances just about anywhere they wanted-but not on campus. By the way, noteworthy is the fact the students burned a copy of the constitution during their the May 1st riot...er, assembly and demonstration.

So, yes, I will correct you. Of course if that is all the students were attempting, a constitutionally protected freedom of speech and freedom to assemble, they would have that right. However, that was not the case. You are painting the situation as if it were such an everyday peaceful protest when it was not

It was riotous chaos.

This wasn't about students' rights or grievances, this was about controlling the chaos. The Guardsmen and the University officials had decided to ban and prohibit the May 4th rally/protest/demonstration, prohibiting any demonstrations on campus while the guard was present there, due to the violence and riotous behavior by students in the days and demonstrations preceding May 4th.

However on May 4th, by 11am about 1000 students were disregarding the known prohibition of the planned demonstration, and were making their protest as much about, if not really more about, the guard's presence, and their rights to assemble at that point, fueled by an anti-authoritarian fire of indignation that their elected Nixon would expand the Viet Nam war instead of ending it, and their personal oppression as they saw it, by the government now as well. By noon it was 3000. Though half were spectators, and another quarter, but fans of the demonstration and actual active protestors.

Originally, the students were quite angry that Nixon had announced the day prior to the first protest, the extending of the Viet Nam War into, and by, invading Cambodia, after he was elected in part on promises to end the Viet Nam War, now they were just angry with the world and looking for a fight. The so called peaceful students of Kent State, turned their town upside one day and their campus into it's own war zone within four.

Originally posted by StormriderEven if a protest turns ugly and rocks are thrown, the use of deadly force is inexcusable.

I'd say that depends. If you and your buddies were being stoned by 1000 people, you may think otherwise about fending them off with mortal force. However, before you say that is not what happened at Kent State, I'll admit that is true. My point is, sticks and stones do break bones, and 1000 people can do a lot of damage-even mortal damage, so it's not always inexcusable. Also, to correct you, just before the shootings after the Guardsmen were retreating back up Blanket Hill, the rock throwing had peaked for about 10 minutes.

Originally posted by StormriderIf you bothered to read any of the supporting links you would know that the National Guard troops did not fire on the students that were the nearest to them but at students who were up to 900 feet away; students who were not even a part of the earlier demonstration.

Now, think about that logically, why did they, as you presume, aim above and past protesters and other students to purposefully reach innocents 900 feet away, which by the way is not really accurate. I think the furthest away was 750 feet if I recall correctly, the four killed were within 300-400 ft.

It is likely that they were given an order to point and shoot, as evidenced by the new recording released, but pointing away from the closer students, attempting to avoid unnecessary deaths, would go to show that perhaps those who were shot were done so by accident in fact. Perhaps the guardsmen were scared as they testified was the case, and were trying to show force, but did they really intend to kill? I don't think so. Heck, do the math, 65 rounds shot in 13 seconds. 4 dead, 9 wounded. If it was intentional killing, man you are talking about some really, really bad shots.

The famous photograph of the line of men kneeling on the ground is not how the shootings went down either. It wasn't take a knee, take aim, fire boys!. When they'd begun the retreat from the practice field area, back up the hill, they turned, for what reason this newly revealed evidence shows as an order' and fired as both a show of force, and an attempt to finish what they had begun that morning which was disbanding the students, and dispersing them from the prohibited assembly they had continued with, which was more about attacking the guardsmen, than war protesting.

Attacking verbally and still with rocks that day.

I did a report on the Kent State Massacre, writing my final draft listening to Neil Young lament "four dead in Ohio" before turning it in to my professor who had not only been a student, and protestor at Kent State University himself when this tragedy occurred, but had been a personal friend of Allison, one of the four who died that day. It was a grievous task to bear and emotionally wrenching.

At first, I was so outraged as I researched this subject with my anti-war, anti-govt, and idealistically democratic bias.

But the truth is trite, war is hell.

I've been in the active duty military and National guard now, and I've served during the gulf war. I have an marksman ribbon as a damn good (expert) shot, but I wouldn't call myself a sharpshooter by any means.

However, if I was, in the line of duty, trying to control a situation, show force, try to intimidate the masses from further revolutionary violence and destruction, and ordered to point and shoot out over a crowd and I instead hit innocents above the crowd's heads-I would feel bad indeed, however I would take some solace in knowing I was doing my job, following orders, and did not intend to kill anyone.

The sad truth is no one is right or wrong here. Both the National Guard and the students who participated in vandalism, arson, confrontation with the police, resisting arrest, and attacking police and Guardsmen with rocks and bottles are to blame. I know Allison was a protestor, though I don't know if she did anything as violent or riotous as mentioned, but she was sadly killed that day with 3 others, and the 9 who were wounded, and is thus a victim indeed.

We don't know what was in the heads or hearts of the guardsmen who shot, but I am sure, even taking solace in knowing they were following orders and not intending to kill anyone, many are victims of remorse and guilt.

Thus we see, even trite truth is still truth- war is hell, and no side is victimless here.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by 2l82sk8]

Originally posted by Stormrider
If you bothered to read any of the supporting links you would know that the National Guard troops did not fire on the students that were the nearest to them but at students who were up to 900 feet away; students who were not even a part of the earlier demonstration.

[edit on 5/2/2007 by Stormrider]

I dont need to get my history from supported links. I lived through it. I saw the news reports on the TV as it happened. I read the papers when it happened. I lived in Columbus Ohio when it happened. I dont need to rely on watered down internet links to know what happened.

Originally posted by 2l82sk8

It is likely that they were given an order to point and shoot, as evidenced by the new recording released, but pointing away from the closer students, attempting to avoid unnecessary deaths, would go to show that perhaps those who were shot were done so by accident in fact.

That is Exactly what the case against the guardsmen was about....
they said under oath--- no order was spoken---no order was heard---

Somebody, as in a company of guardsmen lied!
the court system was circumvented....along the lines of the Polices' 'Blue Wall' of silence!

it matters not if some of the conscienscious guardsmen aimed away from harming targeted (Unarmed) demonstrators.
The point of civility in the 20th century, negated the right to fire bullets at unarmed civilians
The point of the Law was to determine whom was responsible for the carnage of (presumably) only University students.

Perhaps the guardsmen were scared as they testified was the case, and were trying to show force, but did they really intend to kill?

back then, during Nixon's regime that was the original neocon haven
that has resurrected under PNAC & George W Bush....
there was two diametrically opposed factions=

the 'America, Love It or Leave It' crowd
or the 'Anti-War crowd'

the silent majority stood like a nerd at dance, afraid to take a position...

with a slight experience of human nature, its not hard to figure out that the guardsmen were more aligned with the "America- Right or Wrong"-'Love-it-or Leave-it" mentality, and dutifully like 'Pavolvian dogs',
faithfully followed the command given them...
yet all, later on lied, as to their responsibility or the squad/company/details commander responsibility or order to fire...




Disgracefull

There is no proof that orders were given to the Guardsmen. Any moron could have yelled "Fire". There's always a few in any crowd, probably more than usual in the one at Kent State. We had a guy out on a bridge here a few months ago and sure enough there was one moron in the crowd yelling "Jump!".

Preponderance Of The Evidence

The audio has been released and is available here: Kent State May 4, 1970

Here's a direct link to the WMA audio file: Click here for audio file (Windows Media)

While the recording is somewhat chaotic, my own first impressions are that Mr. Canfora's claims may well have merit.

Modern audio analysis techniques may be able to better isolate and highlight the source, but it does indeed sound to me as if a voice is giving orders immediately prior to the shooting.

Originally posted by RWPBR

Originally posted by Stormrider
If you bothered to read any of the supporting links you would know that the National Guard troops did not fire on the students that were the nearest to them but at students who were up to 900 feet away; students who were not even a part of the earlier demonstration.

[edit on 5/2/2007 by Stormrider]

I dont need to get my history from supported links. I lived through it. I saw the news reports on the TV as it happened. I read the papers when it happened. I lived in Columbus Ohio when it happened. I dont need to rely on watered down internet links to know what happened.

I don't need to rely on those links either as I heard about Kent State while serving in Viet Nam. I did not feel anger towards the students for protesting the invasion of Cambodia; almost everyone I knew who was serving "in-country" at the time felt angry and betrayed by our Commander-in-Chief who had promised to end the war but then reneged on his promise; I was outraged and shocked at the loss of command and control of the National Guard troops and the unecessary deaths of four students and the wounding of nine others. Many Viet Nam vets, including myself, came home and joined the demostrations and protests against the war, so I know what the protests were all about.

When you reach the point of believing that the guardsmen's actions were "excusable" and "understandable", then you must believe that to be the case in every situation concerning citizens who express anger over the actions of their government, or call for a change in policy. Do you believe that? If yelling insults and throwing rocks is provacation enough for armed troops to open fire indiscriminately, then we're not talking about a democracy anymore, we're talking about a police state.

Originally posted by 2l82sk8
However, if I was, in the line of duty, trying to control a situation, show force, try to intimidate the masses from further revolutionary violence and destruction, and ordered to point and shoot out over a crowd and I instead hit innocents above the crowd's heads-I would feel bad indeed, however I would take some solace in knowing I was doing my job, following orders, and did not intend to kill anyone.

When you are holding a loaded weapon and fire in the general direction of other human beings you better be prepared for the possibility if not the certainty that you are ging to injure someone. Listen to yourself: "intimidate the masses from further revolutionary violence and destruction"; sounds like something right out of Mao's little red book. The Chinese had the same idea in 1989 during the Tiananmen Square demonstrations. I quess those Kent State kids should really count themselves blessed that the Ohio National Guard didn't think to deploy any tanks to the campus that day.

Originally posted by Stormrider

Originally posted by RWPBR
People who throw rocks and bottles at armed soldiers should expect to be shot at.

THere was no throwing of rocks or bottles; it was an entirely peaceful demonstration until the dean of student s called in the National Guard and gave orders to move on the demonstrators.

The Dean of students did all that? How could he have had the authority to control the National Guard?

The video is shocking, but many similar incident have appened across the world, with yet unresolved cases of murdered and missing people.

Does this mean then that as this is history, it is not considered a crime in today's America?

More worryingly could it happen again?

If your own army that is paid by you to protect you can ultimately turn against you with force, then why are there so many non believers of a UN State Police force? Will history repeat itself?

Well done to the friend, who has at least gained comfort in the fact that his quest to find the truth, has ended, at least partially.

Maybe justice will never be truly served, but at least we all rest in the knowledge that there are people who will take risks to expose the truth, and that they will not be prevented from exposing the true lies.

Next stop? JFK?


[edit on 2-5-2007 by deaman88]

I was six and I remember it, not so clearly as those who might be older than I, but I remember it. CBS evening news with Walter Cronkite. Don't remember what I thought about it obviously, if I even thought anything at all, but I remember it.

Hard to believe that the Vietnam war was actually so long ago...seems like only yesterday even to me, who was so young through the tribulations of the time.

Originally posted by Stormrider
THere was no throwing of rocks or bottles; it was an entirely peaceful demonstration until the dean of student s called in the National Guard and gave orders to move on the demonstrators.

Entirely peacefuly? Not at all. You are not working with the facts here, especially thinking the Dean of Students "called in the National Guard."

First, the National Guard was not called in for peaceful demonstrations anyway, but because there had been down town rioting, fires in the streets, bottle and rock throwing confrontations with local police, destruction of property, etc. Violence and mayhem.

I notice you say "until" the national Guard was brought in, so you do at least passively support the fact that the demonstrators became more aggravated by the presence of the National Guard.

As far as the day of the shootings, as in the preceeding days, there had been many scenes of throwing rocks that day as well, especially when the demonstrators were asked to disperse as they had gathered against a ban on on-campus demonstartions by order of the Nat'l Guard and university officials.

Originally posted by deaman88The Dean of students did all that? How could he have had the authority to control the National Guard?

Exactly, I hope that is a rhetorical question, but in case it isn't, or for those who don't know the facts, no, the dean of students doesn't have the authority, and he did not call in the Guard.

The decision to bring the Ohio National Guard onto the Kent State University campus ocurred not because of peaceful on-campus demonstration protesting the invasion of Cambodia by US troops either, but because what happened after that ralley in the town of Kent by those students, and what was feared to happen as indicated by what they were capable of that night.

They proceeded to go into town and the students and bikers got entirely out of hand in town and caused chaotic mayhem on a grand scale there. Bars were ordered to close early because of what was happenening which further infuriated the protesters, who had become a general threat to society exemplified by the violent confrontations between protesters and the local police.

Bonfires in the streets, bottles thrown at police cars, store windows broken, cars stopped in the streets. All of the Kent police force was called to duty that night, as well as calling in back-up from the county and surrounding communitities.

Mayor Satrom initiated declaring a state of emergency and called Gov Phodes office for assistance.

The next day, Mayor Satrom met with city officials and a representative of the Ohio National Guard who had been dispatched to Kent. The mayor then asked Governor Rhodes to call in the Ohio National Guard to Kent.

There had been threats made to downtown business and to city officials, and rumors were circulating about militant radical revolutionaries intent on destroying the city of Kent and Kent State by now. Knowing another demonstration was scheduled for May 4th, and in light of the chaos they could hardly contain on the previous night, the mayor feared further escalated disturbances in Kent based upon the preceeding night's events and was afraid even beefed up local forces would not be enough to control future possibly planned disturbances of the same nature.

So he, Mayor Satrom, called the Governor's office to make an official request for assistance from the Ohio National Guard.

...and then what happened?

The Guard arrived in Kent at about 10 p.m. where they encountered the very mayhem they'd heard about. The ROTC building next to the Commons on campus was ablaze by arson with more than 1000 demonstrators surrounding the building and chanting.

This was not a peaceful scene they walked into, and these were not 'entirely peaceful' protestors or demonstrations.