Boston Massacre

[Devils_Advocate]

I've been watching John Adams, and me and my mom got into a debate about the Boston Massacre. My question is, do you believe the soldiers were innocent, harrased people whose lives were threatened, or butchers who over-reacted to a mild threat?

Here's how I see it: First, Preston is innocent as we are. Even if he did shout an order to fire, it never would have been heard over the screaming crowd of 500 rioters. But the rest of them are guilty. Hugh White (I think) was hit by a club, yes, but if he gets back up, takes aim, shouts, and fires, he obviously wasn't in life-threatening condition. Unless your life is really being threatened, a policeman (or, in this case, a soldier) has no right to fire a gun blindly into a crowd. These men's lives were, perhaps, mildly threatened, but the fact that they had fully loaded guns and the rioters had, at most, clubs, absolves the crowd.

What's your take?

[softwareNerd]

These men's lives were, perhaps, mildly threatened, but the fact that they had fully loaded guns and the rioters had, at most, clubs, absolves the crowd.

I don't think that's enough to go on. A large enough mob could have been a threat to them, despite their old-fashioned guns. I've read that the mob was throwing ice at the soldiers and taunting them to fire. If one of them was actually hit and fell down, I don't think you can claim that just because he was able to rise he had no fear for his life. Two of the soldiers did end up charged with manslaughter. I think its impossible to make a judgment unless one at least studied the actual testimony with some care. Adams, writing in his diary, seemed to think the jury reached the right decision:

"I have reason to remember that fatal Night. The Part I took in Defense of Captn. Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country. Judgement of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Execution of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right."

--John Adams, Diary entry, March 5, 1773

Edited May 11, 2009 by softwareNerd

[spaceplayer]

I've been watching John Adams, and me and my mom got into a debate about the Boston Massacre. My question is, do you believe the soldiers were innocent, harrased people whose lives were threatened, or butchers who over-reacted to a mild threat?

Here's how I see it: First, Preston is innocent as we are. Even if he did shout an order to fire, it never would have been heard over the screaming crowd of 500 rioters. But the rest of them are guilty. Hugh White (I think) was hit by a club, yes, but if he gets back up, takes aim, shouts, and fires, he obviously wasn't in life-threatening condition. Unless your life is really being threatened, a policeman (or, in this case, a soldier) has no right to fire a gun blindly into a crowd. These men's lives were, perhaps, mildly threatened, but the fact that they had fully loaded guns and the rioters had, at most, clubs, absolves the crowd.

What's your take?

Are you referring only to the movie, or is your opinion based on more research? Apparently, what we know of it was a propaganda opportunity, and not quite the massacre it was painted to be. As for the verdict, I believe it was dealt with in court to the satisfaction of both sides, and the consensus was that the soldiers did overreact, but that they were egged on at the same time.

[Devils_Advocate]

Are you referring only to the movie, or is your opinion based on more research? Apparently, what we know of it was a propaganda opportunity, and not quite the massacre it was painted to be. As for the verdict, I believe it was dealt with in court to the satisfaction of both sides, and the consensus was that the soldiers did overreact, but that they were egged on at the same time.

More research. The movie did a terrible job portraying the facts.

I don't think that's enough to go on. A large enough mob could have been a threat to them, despite their old-fashioned guns. I've read that the mob was throwing ice at the soldiers and taunting them to fire.

Yes, the crowd was a threat, no doubt, but does being hit with ice really justify firing into a crowd? If people were assulting them en masse, then yes, the soldiers had the right to fire, and if one individual was assulting them, the soldiers had the right to fire on them. But when you fire randomly into a riot, when you have minimal threat, you overstep self-defense.

If one of them was actually hit and fell down, I don't think you can claim that just because he was able to rise he had no fear for his life. Two of the soldiers did end up charged with manslaughter.

He did have the right to fear for his life to a small extent, but but the situation was not dire enough for him to justify shooting at whoever was in his line of fire. Were he seriously injured, then it would be a different story. But the fact is he severly over-reacted to a mild clonk on his head.

[softwareNerd]

He did have the right to fear for his life to a small extent, but but the situation was not dire enough for him to justify shooting at whoever was in his line of fire. Were he seriously injured, then it would be a different story. But the fact is he severly over-reacted to a mild clonk on his head.

So, a line of soldiers should stand peacefully while they receive mild clonks on the head from a hostile crowd that is taunting them?

[SD26]

He did have the right to fear for his life to a small extent, but but the situation was not dire enough for him to justify shooting at whoever was in his line of fire. Were he seriously injured, then it would be a different story. But the fact is he severly over-reacted to a mild clonk on his head.

There's a fine line between a mild clonk on the head and one that puts one down to where a person is completely out and incapable of doing anything to defend oneself.

Additionally, if one is actually attacking one with a blow to the head vs a blow to other parts of the body, there's a different intent.

Is that disagreeable?