By THOMAS ZABROSKE

"A lot of people felt their lives were in danger which in fact, was the fact, and the military man always has the option to fire if he feels his life is in danger. He has the right to protect himself."

Such was the quote of Brig. Gen. Robert Canturburry in Kent, Ohio, May 4, 1970.

David McLaren, student at Kent; "I saw several people covered with blood. I ran like hell."

Four students killed, five wounded, and four seriously injured was the casualty list for the week of May 3, 1970. Do we want these kinds of articles in our papers?

Gen. Canterburry states, in essence, that when a military man feels his life is in danger he has the right to shoot. Someone did; he was under no order to shoot; yet he did. Because one weekend of a month a man goes to play war, this makes him a military man. This gives him the option to fire if he feels his life is in danger. Why are those select few given that right?

Neither the National Guardsmen nor the students are to be blamed for the tragedy which took place on the fourth.

Why can't a more sensible, disciplined, and professional unit take care of these disorders? A unit should be taught to think, analyze, and then react. Why can't they be called in? Probably because they're too busy in other people's countries instead of our own.

On March 5, 1770, in Boston a similar situation took place. These soldiers fired into a crowd of people, who were throwing objects and undoubtedly insults, killing five and wounding six. We are taught that the soldiers there were wrong. How about the National Guard?

The date then was 1770, the date now is 1970, 200 years later. Five years later in 1775 the American Revolution took place.

They say those that are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.