The Boston Massacre: Murder Or Self Defense?

After the shooting, the people of Boston demanded that the soldiers be tried and executed for the shooting. Two soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter. This whole incident is outrageous. There isn't any need to result to violence when something goes wrong.

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.

Crispus Attucks was born a slave in the town called Framingham, Massachusetts. Crispus Father was married to a woman who originated from Natick tribe. Back in 1750 William Brown was a slave owner in Framingham and advertised for the return of a runaway slave named Crispus. Crispus status was a free man or a runaway slave has been matter of debate of historians. He was temporarily in Boston by the early 1770’s and recently returned from a voyage from the Bahamas.

One week ago, the colonist attacked the British. This was a tragic event where the Colonist threw snowballs, clubs,oysters,and chunk of ice. In addition they told us the British,to fire if we dared, so we did but, on accident. Once one of us fired, other British started to. The colonist protested that they were unarmed but they really had many items that could kill.

Although many historians believe that the Boston Massacre was an act of murder, it is clear that the incident was self-defense. First, On March 5, 1771, a group of colonists gathered and started taunting a soldier in front of the Custom House. Quickly more colonists gathered around the soldier. Different sources say that there were anywhere from 70-200 men that were there that night. According to Unsolved History: The Boston Massacre, Captain Preston got a group of soldiers to go out and get the soldier.

He was the first victim to die from The Boston Massacre. Crispus Attucks was shot by a redcoat called Private Montgomery. The man who killed Crispus Attucks was hit with a stick and he decided to fire into the crowd killing 5 civilians including Crispus Attucks. Crispus Attucks, Samuel Gray, Samuel Maverick, Patrick Carr, and James Coldwell were the 5 civilians killed in The Boston Massacre. They were all buried in the same grave.

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 Massacre was self-defense because according to history from books on March 5,1770 groups of colonist decided to riot and surround the British soldiers, Throwing things at the soldiers and taunting them to fire. My first argument is Crispus Attucks took a cordwood stick and swung it at one of the soldiers who protected him from the blow. Attucks was yelling" Kill the dogs"! " Knock them over!" This is self-defense because Crispus Attucks struck the soldier first, and once the soldier was hit he could act back upon the hit and could do anything to protect himself from a contact

In recent discussions pertaining to Thomas Preston, a controversial issue that has been recognized is whether he was innocent or guilty in the events of the Boston Massacre. On one hand, some people dispute that Preston was faultless. From this perspective, it is believed that he was not to blame for the actions of his troops when they opened fire into the crowd. They believe the bitter actions of the troops should not reflect onto Captain Preston. On the other hand; however, others argue that Preston was undeniably at fault as he gave the commanding orders to fire into the crowd.

There was not a massacre on March 5, 1770 in Boston because according to Captain Preston and John Bufford, the colonist and the troops were both armed and attacked each other. This means that what happened in Boston was not a massacre. The first reason the event was not a massacre is because the event in Boston 1770 was a war. As stated by Captain Preston “The colonists were assembling to attack the troops… they surrounded the guard and threatened to execute… after a soldier was attacked he fired…”. This supports my claim because it proves that, both the troops and colonists were attacking each other, and the troops attacking the colonists was not a random decision.

Finally, Samuel Gray, a patriot, was involved in a fight with a soldier the day before. This shows that it was a murder because the soldier involved in the fight

he infamous street fight that took place in Boston, Massachusetts is referred to as The Boston Massacre. The Boston Massacre occurred on March 5, 1770. The riot started when a few young boys began to throw stones and rocks at British soldiers who were guarding the Customs House. The crowd around the boys started to grow larger and larger, and then people from the crowd begun to join the boys, throwing ice at the soldiers and taunting them. The soldiers then fired, killing five colonists.

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.