BOSTON MASSACRE ESSAY Jennifer Kim 8C

(B)The soldiers should have been found guilty Disagree

Was the judge just in their verdict, that the soldiers were not found guilty of murder in the Boston Massacre? Should they have been found guilty, and punished, as the colonists had wanted? No. The soldiers were put on trial, and were not found guilty. This was simply because they could not find them guilty, meaning, there was no trace that the soldiers had a malicious intent to actually kill people in the crowd. Also, there were some other factors that had to be put into account; mainly the fact soldiers were being harassed by the angry crowd, in which their lives were being threatened. There is a lot of debate over this issue. Did captain Preston and his men, really have the intent to fire and kill colonists in the crowd? From what sources say, it is not true. Captain Preston has stated that this shooting was a melancholy affair, aligning with the American point of view, in that it was a most tragic event. When one looks at this, they might wonder why Preston, a British, whos soldiers and also the sentry, claimed to be victims of physical harassment and assault, would call this a melancholy event. If Captain Preston had intended to fire at the people, then would he have described it in such words? Would a well trained captain of the British army, have ordered soldiers to fire, if there was no provocation? Would these soldiers have fired, accidentally, or on purpose, if they were not being provoked and being put into danger by the mob of angry colonists? The other major clash that must be noted, is if the sentry guarding the custom house was harassed, and the soldiers who came to help him, were also attacked, or if it was a mere act of playful mischief on the part of the children. An anonymous source gave the information, that There was much foul language between them, and in consequence of his pushing at them with his bayonet, threw snowballs at him, then causing the soldier to go plead for help. This anonymous

person states that it was nothing serious; just a few snowballs. However, can this be believed? There is nothing known about this source, who he or she is, their age, residence, and especially if the person was there at the time of the event. This is highly unlikely, since the person uses a third person point of view, unlike Captain Preston, who speaks in first person, having actually been at the scene. Opposite to this anonymous source, Captain Preston speaks that 100 people Immediately surrounded the sentry posted there, and with clubs and other weapons threatened to execute their vengeance on him. Was this just an act of children throwing semi-hard clumps of snow, or was it a more serious problem? Definitely the latter. The sentry, a fully grown man, who had been given the responsibility to guard the custom house of the king, by the British officials, would have been able to withstand a few snowballs from some boys. The only reasonable cause that can be given for the sentrys desperate cries of help, was because he was being physically abused to the point not just by children, but adults as well. So were the soldiers really guilty? From the way things were, and the evidence left of the events, it is clear that it was not the fault of Captain Preston and his soldiers, that guns went off on that fateful night. The soldiers were punished justly, of manslaughter, not murder, because such was not the true intentions of the soldiers. Provocation in the part of the colonists made their case stronger, by proving that they had an adequate reason to fire, if although unproved, it was intended from the beginning.