Free Thought Project – by Matt Agorist
On May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard descended on the campus of Kent State University in Ohio to quash and antiwar protest. During the protest, soldiers opened fire on an unarmed group of students—firing 67 rounds in 13 seconds—killing four and injuring nine others. To this date, not a single person has been held accountable and the government still refuses to admit that it participated in the murder of its own citizens.
As the Free Thought Project reported in 2016, Kent State is the one school shooting that the US government wants you to forget.
It has been 48 years since that day and there has yet to be a credible and impartial investigation into the massacre. Also, no group or individual has faced a single consequence for opening fire on innocent students and killing them. Although eight of the National Guardsmen who opened fire that day were indicted by a grand jury, all of their charges were eventually dismissed.
The families of the victims were given $15,000, a statement of regret, and essentially told to get on with their lives.
For decades after the killings, the US government did their best to cover up the shooting. As an in depth explanation from Counter Punch points out, “the US government took complete control of the narrative in the press and ensuing lawsuits. Over the next ten years, authorities claimed there had not been a command-to-fire at Kent State, that the ONG had been under attack, and that their gunfire had been prompted by the “sound of sniper fire.” Instead of investigating Kent State, the American leadership obstructed justice, obscured accountability, tampered with evidence, and buried the truth. The result of these efforts has been a very complicated government cover-up that has remained intact for more than forty years.”
Not until 2010, after undeniable forensic evidence was dug up by independent and private researchers did the real truth of that day begin to surface.
Aurel Krause and Emily Kunstler founded the Kent State Truth Tribunal (KSTT), which helped to expose the sheer lies fed to the American public about what really happened that fateful day.
In spite of this overwhelming and indisputable evidence, in 2012, the US government, once again, refused to reopen the case. However, the truth still came out.
A crucial piece of the conspiracy was apparently uncovered in 2010 that played a pivotal role in exposing the crimes of the US government. Audio recordings were analyzed and subsequently found to record the Guardsmen being given orders to murder the protesters.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on this revelation in 2010:
“Guard!” says a male voice on the recording, which two forensic audio experts enhanced and evaluated at the request of The Plain Dealer. Several seconds pass. Then, “All right, prepare to fire!”
“Get down!” someone shouts urgently, presumably in the crowd. Finally, “Guard! . . . ” followed two seconds later by a long, booming volley of gunshots. The entire spoken sequence lasts 17 seconds.
According to the reports, the review was done by Stuart Allen and Tom Owen, two nationally respected forensic audio experts with decades of experience working with government and law enforcement agencies and private clients to decipher recorded information.
Despite the troops’ claims of protesters throwing rocks at them, the shots were fired from 60 feet away. What’s more, as Allen and Owen point out, there is no audio indicating that the troops who opened fire were getting hit with rocks.
There is undeniable evidence, however, that the US government killed innocent civilians for protesting war and yet still, no one was held accountable and the government refuses to acknowledge it.
As Krause explains, “Kent State remains a glaring example of government impunity, it sends a message that protestors can be killed by the state for expressing their political beliefs.This lack of accountability and hostility towards peaceful expression flies in the face not only of our Constitution, but also our international human rights commitments.”
Indeed, the idea that one’s government can kill them for peaceful protest is chilling, which is why the establishment wants you to forget about it.
Below is a video of what oppression looks like. Americans would do well to remember this did not take place in some tyrannical other country, but right in their own backyard.
3:11 Crosby,Stills,nash and Young Four dead in ohio
Like the same audio forensics that discovered at least 8 gun shots at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles June 4 1968 when Bobby Kennedy was gunned down by ” lone gunman ” Sirhan Sirhan….with a six – shooter. Pun for the day….May the fourth be with you.
The Vietnam war was a disaster……and it gave rise to the leftists who instigated many a riot in the US.
I was at Kent State the day it happened. The protestors were getting violent. They were tossing rocks and anything they could find. Some were trying to set buildings on fire. I saw them. The shootings were in reaction to the rock throwing and someone setting off a firecracker. I can understand why the ONG fired…..they were really not trained for this kind of thing.
What we do know is that after Kent State, there were no more riots. That we know for sure.
Yeah, I suppose it did end the riots, gunning down unarmed people will do that.
How anyone could defend this shit is beyond me, but then again you probably vote, support this unconstitutional international military, and the Israelis gunning down unarmed Palestinians.
F#@king pathetic.
Steve, I found your response to be jaw-dropping. It is pure defense of State violence and the killing of those who tried to stop it, who were protesting a MOST UNJUST, CRUEL WAR!!
.
Me thinks Steve might have been or had a family member in the ONG
“The Vietnam war was a disaster.”
Not for those who implemented it. It was a smashing success.
“… and it gave rise to the leftists…”
Still falling for the banana in the tailpipe, I see. Read what Ned Beatty had to say about that left-right bullsh#t…
“Senator Charles F. Meachum: There are no sides. There’s no Sunnis and Shiites. There’s no Democrats and Republicans. There’s only HAVES and HAVE-NOTS.”
“They were tossing rocks and anything they could find.”
Oh, you mean like the Palestinians over in Israhell?
I suppose you feel that the stinking jews are justified in MURDERING them too, right?
“The shootings were in reaction to the rock throwing and someone setting off a firecracker.”
Tear gas, smoke grenades & water cannons weren’t an option?
And if someone set off a firecracker, it’s far likelier it was one of THEM in an effort to attain exactly the results that were achieved.
“I can understand why the ONG fired…”
No you can’t, not if you actually believe it was in any kind of self-defense. That entire scenario was ORCHESTRATED.
“… they were really not trained for this kind of thing.”
They are now.
IN ISRAHELL!!!!!
To this day, 400 southeast Asians every year are killed by cluster bombs dropped during the Vietnam invasion.
That was after the kings men left, when they were done killing about 2 milion. Fun fact.(sarcasm)
They were trained PERFECTLY and followed orders from their masters EXACTLY as trained by firing on whoever they were told to fire on, including Americans.
They’ll do the same to you, even if you suck their arse and lick their boots. That’s “your” precious, military.
The one odd thing about Kent State was that the ONG were sent to do “riot duty” with weapons and live ammo, AND the ammo was issued to individual soldiers ready for use before things even got sporty. Think about that. What was the Ohio Governor (Command and Chief of the ONG when on State orders) thinking? What was the Adjutant General of the ONG (Major General) thinking? What was the unit command thing?
When my active-duty unit was tasked to do riot duty, we were trained on, and issued, riot batons–not weapons and live ammo. This was AFTER Kent State.
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974)
Kent State; 42 U.S.C. Civil Rights Act applied to state executive officials
The immunity of officers of the executive branch of a state government for their acts is not absolute but qualified and of varying degree, depending upon the scope of discretion and [416 U.S. 232, 233] responsibilities of the particular office and the circumstances existing at the time the challenged action was taken. Pp. 238-249. Cf. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991)]
[416 U.S. 232, 236] When a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of any evidence either by affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test. Moreover, it is well established that, in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.
“In appraising the sufficiency of the complaint we follow, of course, the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) (footnote omitted). [416 U.S. 232, 237]
See also Gardner v. Toilet Goods Assn., 387 U.S. 167, 172 (1967).
[416 U.S. 232, 237] However, since Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), it has been settled that the Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official confronted by a claim that he had deprived another of a federal right under the color of state law. Ex parte Young teaches that when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he “comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.” Id., at 159-160. (Emphasis supplied.) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/416/232.html