[Phil153]

latefordinner,

You appear to have misunderstood me. Sometimes I don't write clearly. Using deadly force to quell protesters is never justified, except in the last extreme of defence of a policeman or bystander's life. It certainly wasn't justified here, although the situation was far more extreme and tensions far more heightened than your teargas example. I'm merely saying that this tragic mistake isn't really the fault of the government. Probably far less than half, in fact.

Myrtle,

Note the language OP uses, and the facts he chooses to highlight:
[ QUOTE ]
Just three weeks after California Republican Governor Ronald Reagan's declaration about student protests, "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with"...

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does he mention this if not to suggest the government may have done this deliberately, or callously? What possible relevance could it have? He mentioned this strange fact, and yet didn't mention the sheer terror and disruption these students were causing in the local community through daily violence.

He then mentions that a song was wrapped in a bill of rights to highlight "the right to peaceful assembly". Nothing about any of these protests was peaceful assembly - it was the complete opposite, which was the reason they called the armed national guard in the first place, after weeks of regular violence.

The tragedy here has nothing to do with free speech or the right to peaceful assembly, or even government brutality. Is has to do with the dangers of protesters using violence to make their point, and the lack of effective non violent techniques for crowd control back in the 70s.

Perhaps OP would state if he thinks the government was complicit in this shooting, or if this was just an accident. Because if it was just an accident, he's missing the most important points of this tragedy. If it wasn't, then there's something to talk about.

And yeah, lol @ free speech zones. I'm with you on that.