DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Student protests, 1972-1973 | 1972-05-16 Daily Iowan Article: ""UI student offers confession; Tells why he set camper fire""

Transcribe
Translate

Student protests, 1972-1973

1972-05-16 Daily Iowan Article: ""UI student offers confession; Tells why he set camper fire""

UI student offers confession
Tells why he set camper fire
Editor's note: A preliminary hearing will be held today for Mark D. Peters, a 20-year-old University of Iowa student charged with arson in connection with the burning of a pick-up's wooden camper during anti-war protests Tuesday night, May 9. The following is a statement by another UI student, John E. Schroeder, 11 1/2 East Washington Street. In this "little article of confession," Schroeder admits that it was he who set fire to the camper and calls Peters an "innocent bystander."
Copyright 1972,
Student Publications, Inc.
Why Protest?
In My Own Defense 
By JOHN E. SCHROEDER 
Police Capt. R W. Lee cannot fathom the whys and wherefors of peaceful protestors, much the less so, violent protestors. To quote this ever thinking guardian of the public trust: "There's no rhyme or reason for it. I haven't heard any definite ironclad reason for these demonstrations."
This little article of confession will perhaps enlighten the good Captain. I will first tell of my horrendous "crime" against society and then explain the thought process behind it, thus making the rhyme and reason of it all elementary, my dear Capt. Lee.
I liberated a small wooden camper, with the owner's consent, on the night of May 9. After delivering the camper to the scene of the crime and having my intentions made known, the crowd was eager to assist. We unloaded the camper from the truck into a large intersection free of other flammable structures and-or debris. I then kicked out the windows of the camper, to allow free flow of air into the object of my flaming desire, and set fire to the interior of the camper without any assistance whatsoever.
Minutes later, some brilliant undercover work resulted in the apprehension and arrest of an innocent bystander, one Mark Peters. I immediately contacted Peters' lawyer the next day upon hearing of the arson charge lodged against him, and volunteered my services in his trial. I will testify at his preliminary hearing at 10:30 a.m. this morning, May 16. 
Hail, now, the rhyme and reason of it all. It seems to me that the U. S. of America is on a collision course with 1984. President Nixon's foul war policy drops bombs and mines and shells on Vietnam like raindrops while 70 per cent of the American people call for fair weather over there by virtue of our withdrawal. Just who are the masters and who are the servants in this relationship between President and people, who does the bidding of whom?
Furthermore, doublethink is in fact a part of American foreign policy. Take for instance the term "Free World." There's fairly much consensus that the peoples of Spain and Portugal and such as Brazil and Guatemala are not free. And yet, they are considered to be a part of the Free World. Two contradictory ideas, both held to be true simultaneously, doublethink and 1984.
I am quite simply of the opinion that 1984 is coming, already well on its way here now. But rather than roll with the punches and stay down when knocked there, I've chosen to show a sign of resistance, kicking a bit to show that there still be some resistance to the 1984 state of some things.
This resistance has in fact been calculated so as to stay within the bounds of public safety and social acceptance, and yet intended to make an impression at the same time. I'd originally planned to burn garbage cans, but a camper was made available on the spur of the moment, and so it was chosen to stand atop the sacrificial pyre of the Burlington Street and Riverside Drive intersection. 
Garbage cans and campers? What have they in common to qualify them as worthy targets? They fit well within the bounds of public safety and social acceptance, covering three qualifications for the justification of a violent act.
-- the violence initiated must not exceed that which one seeks to stop,
-- innocent casualties must be avoided, and 
-- things must be at least no worse for the violence initiated (perhaps nothing is changed, but something will hopefully be gained or improved, but nothing must be the worse for it.).
People make judgements according to comparisons. Violence is criminal. so now compare my "crime" with those of others.
President Nixon does violence to the people of Vietnam, carrying on a war of genocide to maintain a divided Vietnam. He also does violence to the Constitution, exercising war powers which are reserved for Congress. 
The police likewise do violence on two levels. First, they smash the manifestation of popular opinion against this country's Vietnam war policy, violating the right of peaceful assembly for the redress of grievances, arresting the orderly non-violent demonstrators for disorderly conduct.
Secondly, they do real violence of a physical nature while smashing the manifestation of popular opinion. As Highway Patrol Capt. Lyle Dickinson defended his violent recourse to non-violent demonstrators: "They had all kinds of warnings but the kept on coming. No individual has any cause to reflect back against any action that was taken against them by any police officer."
And now consider my vicious "crime," a victimless crime, if a crime at all. No one's head was split with a club, nor windows shattered without prior consent or approval. The small wooden camper was not stolen, but given to me by its owner. I set it afire in a broad open space, at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Burlington, where no other object or person would be touched by flame.
How does my violent crime compare to that of others? How does a litterbug compare to one who clubs or kills?

Saving...

UI student offers confession Tells why he set camper fire Editor's note: A preliminary hearing will be held today for Mark D. Peters, a 20-year-old University of Iowa student charged with arson in connection with the burning of a pick-up's wooden camper during anti-war protests Tuesday night, May 9. The following is a statement by another UI student, John E. Schroeder, 11 1/2 East Washington Street. In this "little article of confession," Schroeder admits that it was he who set fire to the camper and calls Peters an "innocent bystander." Copyright 1972, Student Publications, Inc. Why Protest? In My Own Defense By JOHN E. SCHROEDER Police Capt. R W. Lee cannot fathom the whys and wherefors of peaceful protestors, much the less so, violent protestors. To quote this ever thinking guardian of the public trust: "There's no rhyme or reason for it. I haven't heard any definite ironclad reason for these demonstrations." This little article of confession will perhaps enlighten the good Captain. I will first tell of my horrendous "crime" against society and then explain the thought process behind it, thus making the rhyme and reason of it all elementary, my dear Capt. Lee. I liberated a small wooden camper, with the owner's consent, on the night of May 9. After delivering the camper to the scene of the crime and having my intentions made known, the crowd was eager to assist. We unloaded the camper from the truck into a large intersection free of other flammable structures and-or debris. I then kicked out the windows of the camper, to allow free flow of air into the object of my flaming desire, and set fire to the interior of the camper without any assistance whatsoever. Minutes later, some brilliant undercover work resulted in the apprehension and arrest of an innocent bystander, one Mark Peters. I immediately contacted Peters' lawyer the next day upon hearing of the arson charge lodged against him, and volunteered my services in his trial. I will testify at his preliminary hearing at 10:30 a.m. this morning, May 16. Hail, now, the rhyme and reason of it all. It seems to me that the U. S. of America is on a collision course with 1984. President Nixon's foul war policy drops bombs and mines and shells on Vietnam like raindrops while 70 per cent of the American people call for fair weather over there by virtue of our withdrawal. Just who are the masters and who are the servants in this relationship between President and people, who does the bidding of whom? Furthermore, doublethink is in fact a part of American foreign policy. Take for instance the term "Free World." There's fairly much consensus that the peoples of Spain and Portugal and such as Brazil and Guatemala are not free. And yet, they are considered to be a part of the Free World. Two contradictory ideas, both held to be true simultaneously, doublethink and 1984. I am quite simply of the opinion that 1984 is coming, already well on its way here now. But rather than roll with the punches and stay down when knocked there, I've chosen to show a sign of resistance, kicking a bit to show that there still be some resistance to the 1984 state of some things. This resistance has in fact been calculated so as to stay within the bounds of public safety and social acceptance, and yet intended to make an impression at the same time. I'd originally planned to burn garbage cans, but a camper was made available on the spur of the moment, and so it was chosen to stand atop the sacrificial pyre of the Burlington Street and Riverside Drive intersection. Garbage cans and campers? What have they in common to qualify them as worthy targets? They fit well within the bounds of public safety and social acceptance, covering three qualifications for the justification of a violent act. -- the violence initiated must not exceed that which one seeks to stop, -- innocent casualties must be avoided, and -- things must be at least no worse for the violence initiated (perhaps nothing is changed, but something will hopefully be gained or improved, but nothing must be the worse for it.). People make judgements according to comparisons. Violence is criminal. so now compare my "crime" with those of others. President Nixon does violence to the people of Vietnam, carrying on a war of genocide to maintain a divided Vietnam. He also does violence to the Constitution, exercising war powers which are reserved for Congress. The police likewise do violence on two levels. First, they smash the manifestation of popular opinion against this country's Vietnam war policy, violating the right of peaceful assembly for the redress of grievances, arresting the orderly non-violent demonstrators for disorderly conduct. Secondly, they do real violence of a physical nature while smashing the manifestation of popular opinion. As Highway Patrol Capt. Lyle Dickinson defended his violent recourse to non-violent demonstrators: "They had all kinds of warnings but the kept on coming. No individual has any cause to reflect back against any action that was taken against them by any police officer." And now consider my vicious "crime," a victimless crime, if a crime at all. No one's head was split with a club, nor windows shattered without prior consent or approval. The small wooden camper was not stolen, but given to me by its owner. I set it afire in a broad open space, at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Burlington, where no other object or person would be touched by flame. How does my violent crime compare to that of others? How does a litterbug compare to one who clubs or kills?