Kent State Was Not a Massacre
A lethal misfire cascade, not a command or an execution
⸻
I. Introduction: The Day We Still Misunderstand
On May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard opened fire on students at Kent State University. In 13 seconds, 67 rounds were discharged. Four students were killed, nine wounded. Two of the dead weren’t even protesters. The event shocked a nation already divided by the Vietnam War and set off a cultural aftershock that still reverberates.
Fifty-five years later, what happened remains both mythologized and misunderstood. It has been called a massacre, a justified response, and everything in between. But what if the reality was neither of those things? What if the truth lies in the mechanics of perception, stress, and cascading error?
What follows is a reframing of the Kent State shooting... not to excuse or obscure, but to understand. I propose that it was a lethal misfire cascade: not a command-driven execution, nor a clean act of defense, but a tragedy born of ambiguity, fear, and the way human beings fail under pressure.
⸻
II. The 40,000-Foot Views
A. The Left-Liberal Narrative: A State Massacre
In this view, the shooting was an act of state terror. Peaceful protesters were gunned down by an occupying force. The National Guard, summoned to intimidate, instead murdered. There was no threat... only unarmed students exercising their rights.
This narrative demands intentionality: that someone gave an order, or that the Guardsmen acted with callous disregard for human life.
B. The Right-Conservative Narrative: Necessary Force
Here, the crowd is the threat. Protesters weren’t peaceful... they threw rocks, hurled tear gas back at the Guard, and approached with hostility. The Guardsmen, under duress and facing physical assault, responded with measured force. The deaths were tragic but perhaps unavoidable.
This view minimizes or rationalizes the use of live rounds, suggesting the Guard had no other choice.
C. My View: A Lethal Misfire Cascade
Neither narrative quite fits. The shot count, firing pattern, and post-hoc investigations all tell a different story.
There was no order to fire. There was no organized volley. Most Guardsmen did not shoot. Of those who did, many fired one or two rounds and stopped.
The Kent State shooting was a contagion-driven breakdown: a few individuals reacted to an ambiguous cue... perhaps a flinch, a shout, a sudden pain... and fired. Others, startled by the sound of gunfire and the confusion that followed, reacted in kind. The shots spread not as a command but as a cascade... a ripple of error.
⸻
III. The Facts on the Ground
• 67 rounds were fired in 13 seconds.
• ~28 Guardsmen discharged weapons out of ~70 present.
• The rest did not fire at all.
• No clear order to fire was ever established.
• There was no reloading... each soldier fired only part of a clip.
• Victims were hit at distances up to 390 feet, suggesting erratic aim or overshoot.
• Investigations, including the Scranton Commission and the FBI, concluded the firing was “unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable.”
Yet even those reports stopped short of labeling the incident a massacre... because the pattern of action did not match one.
⸻
IV. The Model: How Misfire Becomes Cascade
A. The Trigger
The catalyst may have been as simple as a hornet sting, a thrown rock, or a misheard command. Something caused a flinch, a yell, or a panicked perception of threat. That moment was interpreted as danger... and a Guardsman fired.
The first shot was not a command. It was a perceived necessity... a human being reacting to what he thought was hostile fire.
B. Contagion Response
Once that first shot rang out:
• Nearby Guardsmen, already under stress, reacted.
• Some thought they heard an order.
• Others assumed they were under attack.
• Still others simply mirrored the action they saw: raise weapon, fire.
C. Stratification of Response
The responding Guardsmen fall into three broad groups:
• Primary responders: 2–5 fired immediately after the stimulus.
• Secondary responders: 20–25 fired in the next few seconds... usually 1–3 rounds... then ceased when no return fire came.
• Tertiary group: The remainder (~40+) did not fire. They either assessed the situation more clearly or had insufficient time to react before the event ended.
What’s key is this: even among those who fired, most stopped themselves. There was no mass order to continue. No reloading. No sustained barrage.
⸻
V. Why This Model Fits the Evidence
• Low shot count: 67 rounds suggests restraint... not a full volley.
• Short duration: 13 seconds, but staggered, not synchronized.
• Guard testimony: No one credibly claimed they were ordered to fire.
• Investigative findings: No proof of a coordinated command.
• Human behavior under stress: Reaction cascades are well documented in combat psychology.
This wasn’t murder by fiat. It was a breakdown... of perception, of discipline, of structure.
⸻
VI. Why This Narrative Is Rare
Because it doesn’t satisfy anyone.
• The left loses its symbol of repression.
• The right can’t point to disciplined force.
• The media loses a clear villain.
• The academy prefers moral clarity, not neurological nuance.
It’s easier to say “massacre” than to explain auditory contagion, ambiguous stimuli, and voluntary restraint amid chaos.
But that’s what the evidence shows.
⸻
VII. Weaknesses and Limitations
No theory is complete. This one cannot:
• Identify the exact initial cue.
• Confirm the motives of every Guardsman.
• Resolve the interpretive ambiguity of grainy 2010 audio suggesting an order.
But it does explain:
• The low shot volume.
• The cessation of fire without orders.
• The differential participation of Guardsmen.
• The moral fog surrounding the event.
⸻
VIII. Conclusion: Against Binaries
Kent State was not a massacre. It was a lethal misfire cascade... a convergence of bad conditions, primed minds, and human limits. It was unjust. It was avoidable. But it was not murder in uniform, nor a noble defense.
We live in an era addicted to narrative polarity. But some events resist the frame. They must be understood as what they are... complex failures, with lessons not about sides, but about systems.
In Kent State, the tragedy was not just in the lives lost. It was in the refusal to admit what really happened: not evil, not necessity, but something far more dangerous to acknowledge... human error under stress.