Argumentative Essay: The Boston Massacre

Edward Buckley here reporting live from Boston where a massacre has just outbroke. British troops were sent in to maintain order of the colonist. The colonist didn't seem to be too happy about that. Large groups of angry colonist came together and began taunting the British soldiers. Along with the taunting, the colonist began throwing snowballs and showing hostile actions towards the British soldiers.

I believe that the British soldiers were using self defense in the Boston Massacre. Through witnesses and evidence, it is proved that the British killing the colonists was an act of defending themselves. In exhibit A, the crime scene showed how the colonists threw snowballs filled with rocks and sharp things at the British. I think that the British were only firing their guns back at the colonists to save themselves from being badly hurt. I believe that the British fired their guns at the colonists back without intentions go kill, but only to protect themselves.

The American colonists viewed the outcome of this case as unjust and wrong. However, the British soldiers retained innocence in the murder of the Bostonians, due to aggressive actions of the rioters, the legal right to

As a witness to The Boston Massacre as a Patriot as an English citizen, I believe that the British Soldiers are unstable to protect us if they will kill us. The acts that lead up to the killing of five patriots were downgrading us. After are Victory in the French and Indian War we became in debt. The British officials decided to make laws such as Writs of Assistance, Sugar Act, Quartering Act, Stamp Act and the Proclamation of 1763 and more were soon made. This just anger us so a boycott was made called The Sons of Liberty the leader was Samuel Adams.

Passage two of The Boston Massacre is better than Passage one of The Boston Massacre. Passage two has more details about the Boston Massacre than passage one. The way the soldiers and the young men speak is made to understand that it was in an older time instead of just being told. In passage one nothing was really explained but in passage two it was explained better. Passage two is better than passage one.

The Boston Massacres was a terrible event that has faults on both the colonists and the British soldier's shoulders. However, no part of this event would have happened if the colonists had not formed a riot right in front of the British soldiers. The colonists have the right to complain about their feeling on how they are treated by the king. They do not have the right harass and or threaten these British soldiers because these soldiers had done the colonists no fault. By complaining, cursing and or threatening these British soldiers is not going to change the way in which the colonies are treated.

The British fought to defend themselves. They had no intentions of getting back at the colonists for their misdeeds. The colonists should also be held accountable for the first shot, because the British didn 't plan ahead to specifically target the colonists. Though, the Colonists purposely targeted the British. I believe

The evidence, from the 7 eyewitnesses, support that the colonists were the aggressors during the fateful evening of March 5, 1770, the Boston Massacre. Some cited evidence proves it. Number one, “I saw the people throw snowballs at the soldiers and saw a stick 3 feet long strike a soldier upon the right” (Theodore Bliss). In other terms they were assaulting the soldiers with pieces of snow or ice at them, afterward they hit one of them with a 3 foot club. This shows that the soldiers didn’t shoot to murder, they shot in self-defense.

According to a survivor of the boston massacre

This Act made colonies very angry. They react with a boycott. Now watching live from just block away of the ground breaking event The Boston Massacre. Now flying in from Boston is their troops coming in to maintain order to the colonists. British officer walking over to a group of boycotting Colonials.

Was the Boston Massacre an accident, people say it was, people say it wasn't. Till what I´ve heard the Boston Massacre is not an accident because according to the articles many witnesses were there to experience it such as Benjamin Burdick he had a testimony of the Boston massacre that he said in court. Another guy that was there to witness the horrible traject was Nutent Prince both of them saw what happened. Nutent Prince supports either side because it says in source D that he saw snow balls, clubs, buckets, that the colonist had to defend themselves. Also the testimony of Thomas Preston who was the captain of the british soldiers, said i source B that many of the civilians were yelling saying ¨Come on rascals, your bloody backs, you lobster scoundrels, fire if you dare...dam you…

There were many disagreements and because of those, many events were the cause of the American Revolution. These events included bloodshed by others, peoples rights weren’t enforced, individuals didn’t receive freedom, and our country was just not yet whole. Despite of the causes of why the road to Revolution took place there were effects afterwards. When American Revolution was over with the The Declaration of Independence came into place, treaties were signed, and the Bill of Rights. Now these effects/events were amazing, it helped our country tremendously.

The Boston Massacre was a street fight that occurred on March 5, 1770, between a “patriot”. They were throwing sticks, snowballs, and trash at a group of British troops. The loyalists got very annoyed with the patriots so they shot into the mob killing five. The riot began when around 50 colonists attacked a British sentinel. A British officer called in for additional troops

The Boston Massacre is an event most Americans and British students learn about over the course of their education. In America, we learn that British soldiers fired upon innocent civilians, although this may not have been the case. British historians have referred to the Boston Massacre as the "Incident on King Street". After looking over the "Captain Thomas Preston 's Account of the Boston Massacre", as well as "Boston Massacre Trial Depositions" I believe that American historians should refer to the "Boston Massacre" as the "Incident on King Street". The definition of a massacre refers to an unnecessary and random killing of a large number of individuals.

The United States of America, a great but very flawed nation is one of the highest-ranking countries in the world—which isn’t always a good thing. From its number one rating in areas like defense spending (almost half a trillion dollars in 2015 according to data from the National Priorities Project), to its astronomical and ever rising national debt (which increases $40,000 a second (The Telegraph))—America consistently comes out on top. Although rankings like these are upsetting to hear, the most frustrating is the fact that this country outranks every other nation in the world in guns, mass shootings, and gun violence. So far, there have been nearly 1,600 mass shootings since one of the most horrific shootings in modern history at Sandy