Amazon.com Widgets

Were the British justified to fire at colonists in the Boston Massacre?

  • The blame rests solely on the british soldiers

    Because One reason is the British Soldiers wanted to attack the Boston Citizens. According to testimony, Another reason is that the British were shooting with guns, pushing people. For example, A third reason that the British took blame was because British soldiers were heard saying that they wanted to fire anytime they could because he was a British Soldier. For example, Kilroy was heard talking about firing upon the colonists. He said, “he would never miss an opportunity, when he had one, to fire on the inhabitants, and he wanted to have an opportunity ever since he landed.” That is why I think that the British is blamed for the Boston Massacre.

  • It technically wasn't a massacre.

    The title 'The Boston Massacre' is just propaganda that the Radicals used to turn colonists against the British. The massacre itself fails to live up to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition, which is "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty." Under this definition, the massacre hardly fits under the term 'massacre.'

    The colonists weren't helpless, or unresisting. They were provoking the British with snowballs, and rocks. The mob soon grew into a riot and involved weapons like clubs and were assaulting the Redcoats, most likely because they knew they couldn't do anything because of the Riot Act of 1715.

    A redcoat instantly fired into the crowd after getting hit on the head with a club, and the others followed suit. They were shooting in self-defense, as some of the weapons used by the mob could potentially kill one of them. Yes, they went against orders from General Preston, but they were acting in self-defense from being assaulted by several hundreds, if not thousands, of colonists, all hitting and throwing things at them.

    After the "massacre" ended, the Radicals used this as incentive to try and convince the rest of the nation to fight against the British. They took something small and made it into something major, by incorrectly labeling this unfortunate series of events a massacre, and trying to cause an outcry in the colonies.

    Now, I'm not trying to place all the blame on the colonists, as the British Parliament was also at fault for sending more men somewhere that they were obviously not wanted, among other things, but many people seem to overlook the colonists part in instigating the outbreak. Yes, they were outraged, but that is hardly a good enough reason to provoke armed British soldiers. As I've said before, this whole thing was just magnified by the Radicals to try and turn colonists against the British. This was just a misfortunate event caused by tension between the colonists and British made out to be something that it isn't.

  • It wasn't the Redcoats fault. They were only trying to stand up for themselves

    The colonists were disrespecting them when all they were doing was their job. The colonists were throwing things at them, provoking them to fire. They were practically asking for it. It makes me mad when people justified that the colonists weren't the one at fault. If they hadn't been throwing things at the Redcoats and attacking them, the massacre wouldn't of even happened. If you were in the Redcoats position, would you just let the colonists crap all over you? The dang thing wasn't even a massacre! That was just the colonists over reacting because they have to blame everything on the Redcoats. They may have passed garbage taxes and laws, but your even worse if you blame another group for something that you caused.

  • The British were defending themselves

    It wasn't the soldier's fault for going to Boston to maintain the order around there. They did not come to detain the crowd. Plus, the crowd started throwing things at the British. If you were getting slapped around and hurt because you were in the presence of someone(s), would you stand and not do anything? In addition, the people called it a massacre when in truth, the people weren't shot at mercilessly. They were shot at In defense for the British.

  • The British were defending themselves

    It wasn't the soldier's fault for going to Boston to maintain the order around there. They did not come to detain the crowd. Plus, the crowd started throwing things at the British. If you were getting slapped around and hurt because you were in the presence of someone(s), would you stand and not do anything? In addition, the people called it a massacre when in truth, the people weren't shot at mercilessly. They were shot at In defense for the British.

  • British self defense

    They were being attacked. They were not going to stand back get attacked like any human being. No person is going to surrender when they are capable of reacting to save themselves. Just as in todays society people shoot back at others who are a threat to them such as in home invasions, robberies, etc.

  • They stood up for themselves

    The British were sticking up for themselves when they fired at the colonist. I think they were doing what we would do now, i know that if someone attacked me i would stick up for myself or fire at someone who would break into my house or jump me. You never know what to except back then or now.

  • They stood up for themselves

    The British were sticking up for themselves when they fired at the colonist. I think they were doing what we would do now, i know that if someone attacked me i would stick up for myself or fire at someone who would break into my house or jump me. You never know what to except back then or now.

  • Fight or Flight!

    Although it is difficult to know exactly what it would feel like to be afraid for my own life in a situation like this, I think that anything is fair game when it comes to feeling that your life is in imminent danger. I think attacking with weapons should only be used as a last resort and I don't like it, but if it came to defending my own life or that of my family/friends, I think I would have acted in a similar way.

  • The Soldiers were provoked

    The soldiers were harassed and provoked by the crowd. In defense, the soldiers attacked due to the activation of self defense. I don't believe that their actions were crude and bad. The crowd was throwing things at them like sticks, snowballs, and stones. The Britons did restrain themselves from doing anything for quite some time until they realized that the mob were starting to take things like the law and order into their hands due the Britons being at their city

  • Captain Preston said NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Captain Preston wouldn't say "don't shoot" if he didn't have any reason for it. Private Hugh Montgomery had no right in ordering his fellow soldiers to shoot, especially after Captain Preston ordered otherwise. The first thing you learn when you enter the army is "yes sir, no sir" Not, "I know better than you sir." Montgomery obviously had a problem controlling his temper issues, but that doesn't give him any right to shoot!

  • Their reaction was excessive.

    The colonists were behaving violently, and while the soldiers needed to protect themselves, but lethal force should not have been implemented. Most current state laws concerning self-defense allow no greater degree of force to be used than what is absolutely necessary to neutralize the threat. Yes, this means that you can't shoot someone for throwing a small rock at you. I believe, since this law applies to citizens, it's only fair that it applies to law enforcement and soldiers as well.

  • They were fighting for the rights that they deserved!

    It wouldn't be fair to shoot on the colonists if they couldn't even hurt a fly! Why in the world would it be fair to shoot against the colonists even though captain P said not to shoot, Montogmery was stupid enough to most supposedly shoot the first shot and tell his fellow soldiers to do the same but he did not have the right to do either of those

  • The necessary was the action of the British troops.

    Oh course if some was throwing things at us we would retaltite but why with guns was it truly nessscary. Self- defence or not the british held much power over colonies. I am sure they probably could have handled it a better way. Today we have riot because we are frustrated with how people and things are treated. If police or government army comes and starts shooting at the crowd killing people. How would we react. Everyone would be outraged right. Self- defense or not their is always a better way of handling things especially if you have much control.

  • Don't bring snowballs to a gun fight.

    Who will win? The snowballs or the guns? Of course the guns, but why would you even need guns to stop a snow ball fight? There are easier, efficient, and non-life threatening ways to stop a riot other than shooting people. You do not need fire arms. They killed 5 people while the colonists killed none. That's no where near fair.

  • These Men had no life-threatening weapons!

    The only weapons these men had were snowballs and some rocks. No fire-power is needed to enforce such a small riot. This is completely unacceptable and so and so and so and so and so and so and so this is not justified. Got it got it got it got it?

  • Unarmed People aren't deadly

    I say no because while the soldiers were afraid for their lives, the force was excessive. This sounds all too familiar to what happens with our law enforcement now and the killing of unarmed "threatening" individuals. Yes I understand they did have objects they intended to use as weapons, who wins if you bring a snowball to a gun fight?

  • They were defending themselves not trying to hurt anyone!!!

    They had to shoot. If they didn't, someone could have been killed. And did they have any other weapons than guns? No i don't think so. They didn't have knives or anything all they were doing was defending themselves. If someone was throwing rocks and snowballs at you would you just stand there? Probably not.

  • They were defending themselves not trying to hurt anyone!!!

    They had to shoot. If they didn't, someone could have been killed. And did they have any other weapons than guns? No i don't think so. They didn't have knives or anything all they were doing was defending themselves. If someone was throwing rocks and snowballs at you would you just stand there? Probably not.

  • They were defending themselves not trying to hurt anyone!!!

    They had to shoot. If they didn't, someone could have been killed. And did they have any other weapons than guns? No i don't think so. They didn't have knives or anything all they were doing was defending themselves. If someone was throwing rocks and snowballs at you would you just stand there? Probably not.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.