Originally posted by St Udio
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!
Oh, for goodness sake, calm down. Please. You have no proof of such.
First of all, none of that has been remotely substantiated.
Secondly, there are many possibilities here. In preparing for May 4th, and the possible violence that could be repreated and escalated from previous
days, it could have been that some of boys in the troop themselves, or it may very well have been ordered by a commanding officer, that when faced
with the known previously violent protestors, if they felt they were mortally in danger, or in danger of being physically overcome, after verbal
warnings, tear gas etc, if the crowd continued to pursue them, then shooting their guns over or above the crowd would be only a last resort to deter
the actions of the protestors.
On May 4th, an order to shoot may have been shouted by anyone, but it doesn't mean it was heard by everyone, or that it was an official order. The
shooting could have been reactionary to one person shouting to shoot, but the majority of Gurdsmen only following the actions of the few that heard
that order, never hearing it themselves.
So if someone lied, or even if a couple guys did, about hearing an order, it doesn't mean the entire company did. Many could have thought the opening
shots indicated an iminent mortal threat, and in fear turned to fire into the air like their comrades to ward off the masses.
It could have been a misunderstanding even. Someone trying to intimidate the protestors by shouting out mock orders, and a few soldiers taking it as
an actual order, and the others following suit.
Originally posted by St Udio
it matters not if some of the conscienscious guardsmen aimed away from harming targeted (Unarmed) demonstrators.
To you perhaps it does not matter. However, it matters to me that the majority of the 65 shots did no harm and shows that while trying to show force,
they were not aiming directly at anyone or intending to shoot or kill anyone. Some I am sure shot in panic reacting to the shots of other and thus may
have been more careless with their aim, and unintentionally may have been the ones to would and kill.
Originally posted by St Udio
The point of the Law was to determine whom was responsible for the carnage.
It was a bad scene. The protestors were in the wrong, the Guard made poor choices by fear or order, which resulted in unfortunate casualities. People
acted violently, and were inadvertantly acted upon violently. Its a shame.
If they want to pin it on one individual or a few in the Guard, and find him or them soley responsible for closure on the subject, then so be it if
they have the facts and proof. It doesn't change the tragedy.
Originally posted by St Udio
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...
An Anti-War military isn't much a good defense nor is a successful military made of rogue soldiers.
Pavlov's dog was not commanded to eat nor or salivate, he was environmentally conditioned as proven by his biological and behavioral reaction.
These men, were serving their country, had been told what these anti-authoritarian, anti-law enforcement, anti-government and anti-military protestors
had done and were capapble of doing, had seen the fire, the interfering of emergency fire services, had felt the rocks thrown and heard the threats,
and when push came to shove, they reacted as trained, perhaps by folowing order, but they didn't react out of mindless, subconscious desire for
fulfillment as Pavlov's dog.
I do not think they took sadistic pleasure in the shootings even if they were of the mindset 'America-Love it or leave it'. Perhaps one rogue, even
the one to give the false command, or if there was a valid comand, the one to actually shoot to kill instead of to aim away from the protestors, but
certainly not the entire company.
[edit on 4-5-2007 by 2l82sk8]