Who’s most responsible for the Boston Massacre? I think the soldiers was mostly responsible for the wreck on March 5,1770. I think this because of the following: the man shouldn't have been swinging the sword, they used deadly force first, and guns wasn't necessary.
For instance, the sword is what really started the whole fight. The soldier was drunk swinging around a sword on a corner causing sparks from the bricks(“The Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770”). He could've started a fire or anything just by swinging the sword around like that. In the text, it classifies that the soldier injured a minor. On the other hand, the soldier used a deadly weapon first.
The deadly weapon was used first by the British soldier(“The Boston …show more content…
The citizens of Boston didn't have guns or swords, they had to use rocks in snowballs, and sticks to fight the soldiers back(“The Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770”). In the text, it states that Mr. Samuel Grey was killed on the spot when a snowball entered his head damaging a large portion of his skull. Soldiers showed no mercy and shot an innocent African American citizen causing death to the man(“The Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770”). If that one drunk soldier wouldn't have used his sword on that little boy, it could've prevented a lot of deaths.Otherwise, they were to blame for the incidents just by using a deadly weapon first.
Some people think that the soldiers wasn't to blame for the Boston Massacre, but really they was to blame. Although the little boy came over bothering the man first, he’s still a little kid that could've been brought back to his parent's for a whooping instead of getting cut down to the bone with a sword. The fight could've easily been prevented if the soldier would've just spanked him or took him to his owner. Therefore, it was the soldiers fault for not being the adult in the
For instance, the sword is what really started the whole fight. The soldier was drunk swinging around a sword on a corner causing sparks from the bricks(“The Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770”). He could've started a fire or anything just by swinging the sword around like that. In the text, it classifies that the soldier injured a minor. On the other hand, the soldier used a deadly weapon first.
The deadly weapon was used first by the British soldier(“The Boston …show more content…
The citizens of Boston didn't have guns or swords, they had to use rocks in snowballs, and sticks to fight the soldiers back(“The Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770”). In the text, it states that Mr. Samuel Grey was killed on the spot when a snowball entered his head damaging a large portion of his skull. Soldiers showed no mercy and shot an innocent African American citizen causing death to the man(“The Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770”). If that one drunk soldier wouldn't have used his sword on that little boy, it could've prevented a lot of deaths.Otherwise, they were to blame for the incidents just by using a deadly weapon first.
Some people think that the soldiers wasn't to blame for the Boston Massacre, but really they was to blame. Although the little boy came over bothering the man first, he’s still a little kid that could've been brought back to his parent's for a whooping instead of getting cut down to the bone with a sword. The fight could've easily been prevented if the soldier would've just spanked him or took him to his owner. Therefore, it was the soldiers fault for not being the adult in the