Reply #21: No, I mean that the BFD would probably defended the students.

[flamin lib]

Given time, which there wasn't much of, BFD would have been forced to suppress the violence. Our OIC was schooled in riot control, with the emphasis on CONTROL. If that means suppressing a rapidly growing violence with force on the source of that violence so be it.

NG troops were placing killing fire on unarmed civilians. BFD's job would be to stop that.

Were the situation reversed, BFD's job would be to suppress the killing fire from the student's side.

Kent State was not the fault of the NG but of the leadership on site. They should have been trained and not given live ammunition but once they were out of control they became the source of violence. Remove the source, end the violence.

BFD only had two people with live ammunition. Code name Lethal Button One and Lethal Button Two. We were snipers under direct control of the Battalion Commander. We were there to protect our troops. Grunts in direct contact with US citizens have no business with live ammunition. The possibility of bloodshed is too great as evidenced by Kent State.

Professional soldiers know better--not to diminish the role of today's NG, that was a different time and they were under trained.