Kent State High School Shooting Case Study

Four killed, nine injured. They were simply trying to make a difference. In early 1970, following President Richard Nixon’s address regarding the American invasion of Cambodia, students across the nation decided to get involved. One protest, in particular, at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio, turned into a violent protest due to the presence of guards and police, along with other figures of authority. Because it resulted in the loss of the lives of four innocent protesters on May 4, 1970, the open fire of the Ohio National Guard on Kent State University students was not justified.
Despite the fact that the rally may have gone overboard, the Constitution of the United States gives the students the right to organize and assemble freely,

Like most students, Douglas Wrentmore, a student at Kent State University during the protest, did not understand the reason behind firing toward the crowd (Caputo 28). Wrentmore, like Caputo, discovered that the sniper was nonexistent and the troops were making false accusations. He knew that firing into a crowd was a dangerous action, especially when it was composed of college students. Eszterhas and Roberts recognize that “not all of the students had come to participate in the rally” (150-151). Instead, most were there to see what the commotion was about, not to protest the Cambodian incursion. In describing the shooting, Eszterhas and Roberts state that “the two sides looked, to each other, like the inhabitants of different worlds” (8). This illustrates the fierce competition between the two sides, and predicts purposeless violence and bloodshed. It is evident that the lives lost during this shooting could have been avoided with proper preparation and weaponless