With troops in Los Angeles, echoes of the Kent State massacre

Ohio National Guard members with gas masks and rifles advance toward Kent State University students during an anti-war protest on May 4, 1970. More than a dozen students were killed or injured when the guard opened fire. (.)
This article was originally published by The Trace.
Earlier in June, President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard troops and Marines to quell anti-deportation protests and secure federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles.
The move, some historians say, harks back 55 years to May 4, 1970, when Ohio's Republican governor summoned the National Guard to deal with students demonstrating against the Vietnam War at Kent State University. Guard members were ordered to fire over the students' heads to disperse the crowd, but some couldn't hear because they were wearing gas masks. The troops fired at the students instead, killing four and wounding another nine.
The shooting served as a cautionary tale about turning the military on civilians. 'Dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting,' Brian VanDeMark, author of the book 'Kent State: An American Tragedy,' wrote this week for The Conversation.
We asked VanDeMark, a history professor at the United States Naval Academy, more about the parallels between 1970 and today. His interview has been edited for length and clarity.
After the Kent State shooting, it became taboo for presidents or governors to even consider authorizing military use of force against civilians. Is the shadow of Kent State looming over Los Angeles?
VanDeMark: For young people today, 55 years ago seems like a very long time. For the generation that came of age during the '60s and were in college during that period, Kent State is a defining event, shaping their views of politics and the military.
There are risks inherent in deploying the military to deal with crowds and protesters. At Kent State, the county prosecutor warned the governor that something terrible could happen if he didn't shut down the campus after the guard's arrival. The university's administration did not want the guard brought to campus because they understood how provocative that would be to student protesters who were very anti-war and anti-military. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The military is not trained or equipped to deal well with crowd control. It is taught to fight and kill, and to win wars.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has said that deploying the guard to Los Angeles is inflammatory. What do you fear most about this new era of domestic military deployment?
People's sense of history probably goes back five or 10 years rather than 40 or 50. That's regrettable. The people making these decisions — I can't unpack their motivation or perceptions — but I think their sense of history in terms of the dangers inherent in deploying U.S. troops to deal with street protests is itself a problem.
There are parallels between Kent State and Los Angeles. There are protesters throwing bottles at police and setting fires. The Ohio governor called the Kent State protesters dissidents and un-American; President Trump has called the Los Angeles demonstrators insurrectionists, although he appears to have walked that back. What do you make of these similarities?
The parallels are rather obvious. The general point I wish to make, without directing it at a particular individual, is that the choice of words used to describe a situation has consequences. Leaders have positions of responsibility and authority. They have a responsibility to try to keep the situation under control.
Are officers today more apt to use rubber bullets and other so-called less-lethal rounds than in 1970? Even though these rounds do damage, they're less likely to kill. Could that save lives today?
Most likely, yes. In 1970, the guard members at Kent State, all they had were tear gas canisters and assault rifles loaded with live ammunition. Lessons have been learned between 1970 and today, and I'm almost certain that the California National Guard is equipped with batons, plastic shields, and other tools that give them a range of options between doing nothing and killing someone.
I've touched one of the bullets used at Kent State. It was five and a half inches long. You can imagine the catastrophic damage that can inflict on the human body. Those bullets will kill at 1,000 yards, so the likelihood that the military personnel in Los Angeles have live ammunition is very remote.
Trump authorized the deployment of federal troops not only to Los Angeles but also to wherever protests are 'occurring or are likely to occur,' leading to speculation that the presence of troops will become permanent. Was that ever a consideration in the '60s and '70s, or are we in uncharted waters here?
In the 1960s and early 1970s, presidents of both parties were very reluctant to deploy military forces against protests. Has that changed? Apparently it has. I personally believe that the military being used domestically against American citizens, or even people living here illegally, is not the answer. Generally speaking, force is not the answer. The application of force is inherently unpredictable. It's inherently uncontrollable. And very often the consequences of using it are terrible human suffering.
Before the Kent State shooting, the assumption by most college-aged protesters was that there weren't physical consequences to engaging in protests. Kent State demonstrated otherwise. In Los Angeles, the governor, the mayor, and all responsible public officials have essentially said they will not tolerate violence or the destruction of property. I think that most of the protesters are peaceful. What concerns me is the small minority who are unaware of our history and don't understand the risks of being aggressive toward the authorities.
In Los Angeles, we have not just the guard but also the Marines. Marines, as you mentioned, are trained to fight wars. What's the worst that could happen here?
People could get killed. I don't know what's being done in terms of defining rules of engagement, but I assume that the Marines have explicitly been told not to load live ammunition in their weapons because that would risk violence and loss of life. I don't think that the guard or the Marines are particularly enthusiastic about having to apply coercive force against protesters. Their training in that regard is very limited, and their understanding of crowd psychology is probably very limited.
The crowd psychology is inherently unpredictable and often nonlinear. If you don't have experience with crowds, you may end up making choices based on your lack of experience that are very regrettable.
Some people are imploring the Marines and guard members to refuse the orders and stay home. You interviewed guard members who were at Kent State. Do you think the troops deployed to Los Angeles will come to regret it?
Very often, and social science research has corroborated this, when authorities respond to protests and interact with protesters in a respectful fashion, that tends to have a calming effect on the protesters' behavior. But that's something learned through hard experience, and these Marines and guard members don't have that experience.
The National Guard was deployed in Detroit in 1967; Washington, D.C. in 1968; Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992; and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd. Have the Marines ever been deployed? Or any other military branch?
Yes. In 1992, in the wake of the Rodney King controversy, the California governor at the time, a Republican named Pete Wilson, asked President George H.W. Bush to deploy not only the guard but also the Marines to deal with street riots in Los Angeles. That's the last time it was done.
And how did that go?
I'm not an expert on this, but I assure you that the senior officers who commanded those Marines made it very clear that they were not to discharge their weapons without explicit permission from the officers themselves, and they were probably told not to load their weapons with live ammunition.
In 1967, during the Detroit riots, the Michigan National Guard was called out to the streets of Detroit. When the ranking senior officer arrived, he ordered the soldiers to remove their bullets from their rifles.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Associated Press

7 minutes ago

• Associated Press

Texas governor vetoes bill that would ban all THC products

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott vetoed a bill Sunday to ban all THC consumables, allowing the booming market flush with THC-infused vapes, gummies and other products to continue to be sold across the state. Abbott, a Republican, waited until the final moment to veto the bill in what would have been one of the most restrictive THC bans in the country and a significant blow to the state's billion-dollar industry. The law would have made it a misdemeanor to own, manufacture or sell consumable THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, products and was the latest push by states to regulate THC after a 2018 federal law allowed states to regulate hemp, a similar plant to marijuana that can be synthetically processed to produce THC, the compound giving marijuana its psychoactive properties. Loopholes in existing law have allowed many THC-infused goods to enter the market across the country, including states with strict marijuana laws. Texas has some of the strictest marijuana laws in the country, prohibiting all recreational use and providing a limited medical marijuana program. The consumables market has allowed residents to legally access goods giving a similar high to marijuana. Republican lawmakers have criticized the products as dangerous due to a lack of federal oversight in how the goods are manufactured. Texas' ban is one of the more far-reaching among states that have taken similar steps. Several states, including California, have imposed age limits and restrictions on the potency of THC products. Critics of the Texas bill say it allows people who cannot access marijuana through the state's medical marijuana program to acquire goods that can provide a similar relief. Many retailers across the state also pointed to the thousands of jobs and millions in revenue the industry brings each year. Last year, Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed a bill that would have put age restrictions on THC consumables, claiming it would hurt small businesses. ___ Lathan is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

Bloomberg

31 minutes ago

• Bloomberg

What Does the US Strike on Iran Mean for Israel?

Live on Bloomberg TV CC-Transcript 00:00Walk us through how the Israeli public has responded to the US military intervention over the weekend. Good morning, Joumanna. Yes, well, this was a dramatic weekend, one of historic proportions in Israel as elsewhere in the region and in the world, especially countries that have a stake in this part of the world. And Israelis, I would say this is to judge by everything from television panelists to the people I've shared bomb shelters with during the Iranian retaliatory missile attacks appear to be relieved, jubilant, astonished at the fact that the world's great power, the United States, did intervene finally, and using its firepower for what appears to have been a knockout blow, at least as described by President Trump and by his staff to the Iranian nuclear program. Of course, the question is whether it was a knockout blow. And I think what you're going to see today is the discourse shifting to one of BDA. That's the refrain you'll be hearing a lot of battle damage assessments, whether indeed it was a knockout blow, whether indeed the damage was enough to end any credible work at those sites and effectively allow Israel to pack up and say that the war is over. The main threat, what it's described as the main threat to its existence going back decades has now been dealt with conclusively. I thought it was interesting. The Israeli prime minister gave a televised address yesterday where he said Israel is very close to reaching goals in Iran but will also avoid a war of attrition. How should we be reading those comments, Dan? Well, it's worth keeping in mind that the two countries are separated by something like a thousand miles of territory. I think three international borders, Iran is something like 70 times the size of Israel. There really is an asymmetry here in terms of disposition, geography, military standing. So for all the virtuosity of Israeli forces here, I don't think they could afford to sustain fighting in the long run, something akin to what we've seen in the last 20 months in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, which are neighboring countries or neighboring territories. So the Israelis are looking logistically at this. I think they're also signaling to the American public, those Americans who are wondering whether this is a repeat of 2003 in Iraq, that this was a one time deal for Israel and for the United States, that perhaps the US role has begun and ended with this airstrike and that Israel, the country most involved in this, the U.S. ally, is really also trying to wrap things up as soon as it believes that its goals have been achieved and those goals may be achieved very soon.

CNBC

39 minutes ago

• CNBC

NATO allies will pledge to hike defense spend – but will they deliver?

Fireworks could kick off during NATO's annual summit this week, as the U.S. pushes its allies to sharply increase their defense spending to 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP). The 5% figure is made up of 3.5% of GDP that should be spent on "pure" defense, with an extra 1.5% of GDP going to security-related infrastructure, such as cyber warfare capabilities and intelligence. While some member states they're happy to hit that milestone, and some countries are not too far off that mark, others don't even meet the 2% threshold that was agreed over a decade ago. While they might pledge to increase defense spending, whether these promises materializes will be the key question. Talk is cheap and timelines can be vague — but concerted action is what the U.S. and President Donald Trump, who's attending a NATO summit for the first time since 2019, will want to see. "The U.S. is looking for everybody to say, 'Yeah, we mean it. We have a plan. 5% is real. We're going to get there'," Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO and distinguished fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), said Wednesday. "But one thing to watch for is if the messaging is actually on point. Some of the messaging from some of our European allies, at least when they back brief their own media and their own parliaments is, 'Yeah, 5% but it's really 3.5% and 1.5%, and that can be pretty much anything' ... So there's going to be a whittling down [of defense spending pledges] almost immediately," Volker noted at a CEPA briefing ahead of the NATO summit. "And if that is over emphasized, you're going to have a clash with the U.S.," Volker added. The stakes are high as allies meet in The Hague in the Netherlands on June 24-25, given ongoing conflict in Ukraine and war in the Middle East threatening to destabilize the global economy. Defense analysts say this year's meeting could be the most consequential in the alliance's 77-year history, with the U.S.' spend-pushing heavily forewarned before the summit. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was emphatic as he said 5% "will happen" at a separate NATO gathering earlier this month, with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also widely plugging that message to allies too. Defense spending has been a thorny subject for NATO members for years, and a persistent source of annoyance and anger for Trump, who was demanding that allies double their spending goals from 2% to 4% of GDP all the way back in 2018. NATO defense expenditure has nevertheless sharply picked up among NATO members since Trump was last in power. Back then, and arguably at the height of the White House leader's irritation with the bloc, only six member states met the 2% target, including the U.S. Times have changed, however; by 2024, 23 members had reached the 2% threshold, according to NATO data. While some greatly surpassed that target — such as Poland, Estonia, the U.S., Latvia and Greece — major economies including Canada, Spain and Italy have lagged below the contribution threshold. No NATO member has so far reached the 5% spending objective, and some are highly likely to drag their feet when it comes to getting to that milestone now. The U.K., Poland and Germany have already said they intend to increase defense spending to the requisite target, but their timeline is unclear. The UK is also reportedly trying to delay the spending rise among by three years, according to the i newspaper. CNBC has reached out to Downing Street for comment. Spain and Italy are seen as major holdouts against the 5% target, after only committing to reach the 2% threshold in 2025. Canada meanwhile spent 1.3% of GDP on defense in 2024, NATO estimates suggest, even less than Italy, Portugal or Montenegro. Spending 5% on defense is a target, but not a given, Jason Israel, senior fellow for the Defense Technology Initiative at CEPA, said Wednesday. "Every single country ... is trying to figure out how they're going to thread that needle of being able to make the commitment, but also make the accounting work when every single nation has to make trade offs against what is generally unpopular, massive increases in defense spending," he noted, stressing it's a "long way from commitments ... to actual capability," European aerospace and defense companies are following NATO spending commentary and commitments closely, but say they're stuck in limbo between pledges and action by way of concrete government procurement. The leaders of Leonardo, Embraer and Saab told CNBC last week the continent needs to act decisively and collectively to make long-term commitments to defense spending and investment contracts to enable companies like theirs to scale-up their production capacity and manufacturing capabilities. "If we go for 3.5% [of pure defense spending] across the European part of NATO, that will mean a lot, and more will be needed in terms of capacity. But we need to understand the capability targets better," Micael Johansson, the chief executive of Swedish defense company Saab, told CNBC. "We can do more, and I think we need to come together in Europe to create more scale, also in what we do to align demand, align requirements, so we can actually be competitive player in internationally. So there's a lot to do still," he said. Roberto Cingolani, CEO of Italian defense firm Leonardo, agreed that "there's a lot of work to be done." "Leonardo has a capacity boost program at the moment because we are quite aware of the fact that we have to increase the production of specific platforms, defense systems, electronics and technology solutions. It is not only matter of money, it's matter of priority. It's matter of reducing the fragmentation among countries in Europe," he told CNBC's Charlotte Reed at the Paris Air Show. Defense companies needed to know what will be expected of them ahead of time, Cingolani said, given the complex nature of global supply chains that underpin the defense industry. "We have approximately 5000 companies in the supply chain, and we are in 160 countries in the world. So it's very complicated," he noted. "You have to invest in supply chain. You have to make investments. You have to protect the supply chain. But of course, we also have to face a shortage of raw materials ... There is no no simple solution. If there were a solution, we would have done it already," he said.