Originally Posted by dekeguy (Post 2240451)

Perhaps we might review the bidding here. In 1970 tensions at Kent State were high and building. The night before the Kent State riot a mob burned down the ROTC building.
- Not in dispute. Tensions were high on many college campuses that weekend. This was due to Nixon's announcement that US troops would be going into Cambodia.

On the day of the riot a howling mob of 2000 advanced on a handfull of National Guard personnel pelting them with potentially lethal bricks, rocks, and bottles.
-Yeah, no. A large group of students had called for a protest on the campus commons area. The protest started with about 700 students (they were protesting the war and the presence of the guard). By all accounts (even the Ohio National Guard), the protest was peaceful. Unfortunately, the protest occured at noon, just as 11 am classes were dismissing. Because of this, students who normally walked through this area swelled the crowd to about 2000. Most stayed to see what was happening. The National Guard then decided to dispence the crowd. They made an announcement to disperse which was greeted by boos and cat-calls. The Guard then moved out and began to fire tear gas. Most of the crowd left, with some of the crowd throwing back the canisters and throwing rocks they had picked up off the ground. Local tv stations filming the incident show that the vast majority never hit any of the Guardsmen and that the students were moving away. Definately not "advancing" and "pelting with potentially lethal bricks, rocks, and bottles".

The guardsmen fell back but were blocked by a chainlink fence through which they could not retreat.
- Again, yeah, no. The Guard did not retreat, but continued to follow the students up the hill of the Commons. All photos and newsfilm show the students were the ones who were retreating away from the Guard. Yes, students did pick up rocks from the ground, but all eyewitnesses have stated that there was too much distance to hit the Guardsmen. The Guardsmen followed the students up the Commons hill and over the top. The Guardsmen then continued straight, not realizing that they were marching onto a baseball practice field. Once they reached the field, the Guard realized that they could not go straight. All photos and eyewitnesses state that the students were all very far from the Guard and no threat at this time. The Guard was not backed up or trapped against the fence. They were not surrounded. Photos taken by students in Prentice Hall bear this out.

When threatened by imminent violent contact with an angry mob and with no place to go to get out of the way the guardsmen fired.
-I rarely say this, but OMG, are you kidding me? At the time of the shooting, the Guard was in full retreat back to their base at the burned down ROTC building. While some students were yelling and cheering, thinking the Guard had given up, the vast majority were milling around, discussing the incident, or walking to class. From all photographs and eyewitness, and even the GUARDS OWN TESTIMONY, there was no one within 25 yards of them in the rear, and no students between them and their base. At the top of the hill, one Guard turned around and began firing, followed by the others.

As is obvious from the number of hits vs. the number of rounds fired most shots were over the heads of the rioters in an attempt to break up this very real and proximate danger to the guardsmen.
-As pointed out in numerous articles, if the Guard felt surrounded and trapped and the fence, why didn't they shoot there? If they were in fear of their lives when they were returning to their base and began shooting, why were the majority of victims on a parking lot that was over a football field length away? There was neither a real or approximate threat.

The Kent State community bears great responsibility for what happened. One cannot participate in potentially lethal actions and not expect a response from those on the receiving end of those actions. Particularly when the guardsmen were acting as the in loco police authority and the mob was involved in riot. The unpopularity of the Viet Nam War does not confer a license for riot and murderous actions on the mob.
- There was no riot. After the shootings occured, there was the chance of one, but 3 KSU professors literally put their bodies between the students and the Guards, and talked the students into leaving.

Viewed in this light Kent State is hardly in a position to howl in protest over the comments referring to the riot by which they were the authors of their own calamity.
-About half of the victims, killed and injured, were not involved in the protest. They were walking to classes. I'm guessing you think of them as collateral damage?

As to the sign itself, I am of two minds. It does not exactly follow the traditions of Southern Hospitality to a visiting team but on the other hand, on an undergraduate mindset level it points out the probable result of taking on a top rated SEC team. Granted that it may not be in the best of taste, but I don't know any DEKEs who carry around a copy of Emily Post.
Whether or not

Originally Posted by TonyB06 (Post 2240414)

I see them differently. The former is just bad writing.

Originally Posted by nittanyalum (Post 2240617)

I was going to say I took the DKE brothers at their word that their apology was sincere and hopefully this was a real learning opportunity for them.

But then dekeguy came on here and was a douchebag. So fcuk those guys.

Originally Posted by Katmandu (Post 2240630)

Lol at your signature, Nittanyalum!

Kent State is not a punch line. I'm sick of decent human reactions to arrogance and/or stupidity being dismissed as "PC".

Originally Posted by Katmandu (Post 2240630)

Lol at your signature, Nittanyalum!

Originally Posted by DGTess (Post 2240429)

"... the full scoop of the tragedy ..."

SMH

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2240527)

It's not exactly that which I'm referring to, but the requests by some when these things happen that the schools (i.e., the government) do something about it.

If you want to advocate picketing the DKE house, Christ be with you. If you want to advocate LSU yanking their recognition to punish them? I'm not so sure that's an option LSU has for something like this.

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2240647)

Ouch. I missed that.

And I have say, I also missed the rest of that sentence as well: "We, as young college students, did not grasp the full scoop of the tragedy and it's long lasting effects."

Perhaps they'll take advantage of their time at college to learn some history.

And is it really too much to ask that college students know the difference between "it's" and "its"? I guess it is when too many lawyers don't seem to know the difference.

Has anyone in this thread suggested anything like yanking their recognition? If they did, I missed it.

The problem I have is when people throw out the "freedom of speech" mantra as though it means "freedom from criticism." No doubt the chapter has freedom of speech, and I'd be the first to say that schools, especially public schools, shouldn't be in the business of censoring or punishing students for their speech. But that hardly means that the rest of us can't call something stupid and tasteless when it is.

Originally Posted by WestcoastWonder (Post 2240487)

Honestly, this wasn't even the worst sign they've made. They've made signs making light of the Casey Anthony case, the Aurora movie theater shooting and the Sandusky incident.


DKE at LSU really just doesn't give a ****