Amazon.com Widgets

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

  • 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

  • Soldiers have a right to defend themselves.

    Today, if I was standing before a mob of angry Islamic people in their country, I would not be second guessed for how I chose to respond to an angry and attacking force. Outnumbered, the British soldiers exercised restraint towards the mob. When the soldiers were assaulted with snowballs, clubs, and other violence they did the only thing they could do in the hope of escaping with their lives. The soldiers used an escalation of force to scare the rest of the attackers away. Had the British not fired, it is safe to assume they would have been further molested or even killed by mob. Killing in self defense is righteous. Bear in mind that the colonists saw the weapons the soldiers had. They still pressed and provoked in spite of this and got exactly what they were asking for.

  • The massacre itself is deeply misleading

    Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "Massacre" as : "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty"

    A mob several times the size of the soldiers actively throwing stones, sticks, and provoking the soldiers fails spectacularly to match this definition. Not a single person on the no side speaks favorably of the behavior of the Bostonians. Another definition talks of indiscriminate killing, while less men died than total muskets present.

    It was not a mob that formed because of the soldiers aggression, it was the soldiers who deployed in response to the mob's aggression toward a soldier. Nothing that happened that day was fast, and the soldiers ultimately displayed incredible restraint before pulling the trigger.

    When an arrest warrant was issued for the soldiers, they immediately turned themselves over to the sheriff, knowing that any objective jury would deliberate testimony and find their actions justified. Six were acquitted, two reduced charges to manslaughter after pleading benefit of clergy. The fact that jury decision was made with a anti-crown jury pool, speaks volumes.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.