# data[].attributes.body
Even though the colonists portrayed it as an immoral act towards them, it was not necessarily just the British soldiers' fault. The colonists had thrown objects like snowballs and sticks at the soldiers to aggravate them; however, the soldiers did not have to shoot into the crowd to break the mob up.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the Boston Massacre was not really a massacre and more self defense because the firing from the British soldiers was a direct reaction to the snowballs, sticks and stones being thrown at them. If the colonists were absolutely innocent, it would then be considered a massacre because the firing of the British soldiers would not be justified.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the firing was self defense because the colonist were throwing rocks and snowballs at it and taunting them. The attack was a misunderstanding but was the colonists fault.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the Boston Massacre was self defense. The colonists were attacking the soldiers physically with sticks and stones and they used firearms to protect themselves. Both the colonists and soldiers were fighting but the soldiers didn't have sticks and stones with them to fight back (their firearms were they're sticks and stones),

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that this could've been stopped entirely. Both the British and the Americans could have been nicer. If the Americans had not throwed stuff at the British, then the British would have never fired.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the Boston Massacre was an act of self defense. The colonists were physically attacking the soldiers with snowballs, sticks, and stones, and the soldiers fired to protect themselves. If the colonists protested in a different, peaceful way, the soldiers wouldn't have shot them, and if the soldiers treated the colonists fairly, they wouldn't have gathered up to protest.

# data[].attributes.body
Although history often portrays the Boston Massacre with a murderous  intention from the British(hence massacre), it was really a "self defense." The protestors, despite being warned, continued to advance and along the way attacked the soldiers with sticks, stones, and snowballs. This can be seen on the account of Caption Preston, which states that "one of the soldiers having received a severe blow with a stick" fired into the crowd. This was an act of self defense, as if the soldier hadn't fired, the mob might've continued to attack the injured man. In addition, throughout the whole scene, a "general attack was made on the men by a great number of heavy clubs and snow-balls being thrown at them." This again demonstrates that the true intention of the soldiers was to protect themselves and not to massacre the rioters.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like both sides were wrong because the colonist were aggravating the troops, but the troops overreacted.

# data[].attributes.body
Although, both the Captain and the Bostonian Citizens were present at the "massacre", they gave different accounts of what happened because of their bias. I think this was not a massacre, but an incident where the British soldiers would not have wanted to kill any colonists, as violence would fuel anti-British feelings and provide a reason for the Americans to rebel. It is strange that the captain only sent 12 soldiers to protect the sentry and the customs building, where the King's money was kept if he believed that the mob was going to attack. Although he may have sent a small number to avoid confrontation. On the other hand, the Boston citizen said the 12 soldiers came running with the aim of murdering people, following them down alleys. This did not make sense as soldiers would be taught to fight as a group for protection rather than assassins running wildly around the streets killing people. Also the soldiers would need to have a specific order to fire, and with the British trying to hold onto the American colonies, they would have avoided violence. It was in the Patriot's interest for violence to erupt, as then they could use the tyranny of the British redcoats to unite the colonists to fight for their freedom from the villainous British.

# data[].attributes.body
Both parties were in the wrong, but it was still a massacre. While some of the British soldiers were, albeit, being hit with sticks and pelted with snowballs, it doesn't justify taking guns out and shooting civilians.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe it was a massacre. Though the crowd was provoking them they were well-trained soldiers which should have found a better way to defend themselves. Whether the crowd was violent or not nobody had to die that night but the soldiers decided to shoot their guns.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, I think it was a self-defence. Crowd was provoking them, and waving sticks and throwing snowballs. The soldiers were just trying to dismiss the crowd, but crowd was knocking the soldiers. Also, many people was shouting fire, so they could've misheard fire.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it is a self defense because the both sides did bad. England was being unfair to the patriots and patriots teased the redcoats and protested.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that both sides were unjustified but it was a self defense because the event had patriots being killed.

# data[].attributes.body
Both sides did something bad, the colonists or the citizens was self defending but was angering the soldiers. If they didn't anger the soldiers, the soldiers won't have to self defend themselves and hurt the citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
I would consider it a massacre, but I believe it is justified. Both sides were in the wrong here, but if the citizens were thinking more clearly, it likely wouldn't have happened. You could argue that the citizens were technically unarmed, but soldiers were hurt BEFORE they had started shooting. This means that this was no ordinary peaceful protest, but instead a riot.

# data[].attributes.body
I say both sides did a bad thing the citizens killed the soldiers and that was messed up. Then the patriots killed even more people including people that were just minding their own business.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was a massacre. Even though the soldiers were acting upon self defense, it was very unreasonable for them to do this as the citizens had no means of killing indefinitely. There should've been other means to prevent the two groups from fighting as the citizens were mostly unarmed and were just there to protest.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the Boston Massacre was self defence because the soldiers were defending themselves and the King's money. But I do not think that the soldiers should have shot into the unarmed crowd.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was self defense because the event was heavily publicized by leading Patriots as they were being attacked and threatened.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that both sides were in the wrong for the Patriots were waving sticks and weapons while the soldiers shot in a crowd and hurt/killed many people when they should not have. However, I believe that the soldiers were the most in the wrong because they actually killed and permanently injured people while the patriots were riot for a lost friend, family member, fairness, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
Armed soldiers firing into an unarmed crowd is unjustifiable and aligns with the definition of "massacre," but for Boston, the line isn't as clear. Note that the soldiers were also struck by "a great number of heavy clubs and snow-balls" filled with stones and sticks, though that was nowhere near as fatal as firing into the crowd. So essentially, the soldiers were at fault. The case of justice, however, is a whole other story. For alas, each group, and many others, has executed massacres of their own... and not everyone was brought to court for it.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it was for self defence because the town's people threatened British soldiers and started to hurt them and they had to take action.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the boston massacre was an act of self defence. The colonists were the ones that provoked the soldiers to prepare their weapons, and the confusion made the soldiers think they were allowed to fire. If the colonists hadn't provoked the troops this wouldn't have happened.

# data[].attributes.body
While the reasons for why the soldiers kept firing into the crowd is debatable, I believe that it had been self-defense. Though the citizens were unarmed, they were still in a fit of rage, using snowballs to pelt the soldiers (or what I'm assuming). Even though snowballs don't do as much as damage as actual guns, there was still enough people to do considerable damage to the troops.

# data[].attributes.body
This was a massacre for many reasons the key one being that they shot into mostly unarmed crowd which in no way is self defense

# data[].attributes.body
Yep, It was a massacre.
Even though the account of the incident from the Boston citizens sounds a bit exaggerated and like propaganda, there should be no justification to fire into a mostly unarmed crowd, no matter how rowdy or peaceful they are. I don't believe the troops would open fire as they knew this could a larger uproar, but I don't think the colonists wouldn't attack the troops. The account from the colonist said that seven to eleven shots were fired, they was no warning and the troops shot to kill and harm. The colonists were rioting and protesting sure, but the bottom line is, when you fire into a mostly unarmed crowd which is protesting for their rights, and you kill someone... You are, a murderer, it is unacceptable and there are bound to consequences, unless you're a cop in the US.

# data[].attributes.body
It is self defense in my opinion. Regardless of who ordered the fire, injuries, or even death were to take place if the british didn't reacted because the town's people were in a moody state of mind and so is the soldiers. The effectiveness of weapon either side carried doesn't affect the narrative nearly as much as the motive. The soldiers are humans. They saw people surrounding the building housing part of their home country's wealth, they defend it. When their life were threatened, in it within their instinct to return fire.

# data[].attributes.body
I definitely think that though both sides were argued very well, I see the Boston Massacre was a true massacre. The redcoats did not need to kill these people weather they were causing somewhat of a riot or not. Everyone views this differently, but in my opinion, if the soldiers claimed this was self defense, the judge must take into account why the soldiers came there armed in the first place. If they did not anticipate needing to hurt other, why were they the only ones that came armed?

# data[].attributes.body
Both sides have been angered and irritated for a long time before this incident happened. Both were on the verge to snap and this pushed them over that edge. The colonists should not have made the soldier snap, but the soldiers should not have shot the colonists either. It was

# data[].attributes.body
The brawl/battle between the British soldiers and patriots, was a bloody moment that changed the course of rebellion to a revolution. Though history has titled the tragic incident as a "massacre," I believe that the British soldiers were acting in self-defense. It is of course not moral to shoot or murder others, but when armed men advance with utter hatred plastered on their faces, it is not one to blame another for defending themselves with what they judged to be necessary. Though there may be conflicting opinions and perspectives regarding this topic, one should still understand that the provocations, tauntings, and acquiring of potential weapons that the Boston citizens presented were essentially what motivated the fight. In addition, while some citizens claim that all eleven guns were emptied, this is logically not possible unless soldiers shot at the sky or random places. Sources from both sides claim that the square was quite crowded, almost packed. Therefore, it is not truthful to say that the soldiers fired in rapid succession at the citizens, ignoring the consequences, resulting in only three deaths and two wounded. In conclusion, the greatly outnumbered British soldiers felt that their lives and well-being were at risk due to the Boston citizens, therefore acted in self-defense.

# data[].attributes.body
Both sides were not correct here. However, I believe that yes, The boston Massacre should defined as a massacre. I think that the citizens should not have provoked the soldiers and that they should have protested peacefully. Even if they did provoke the soldiers, the soldiers had no right to fire into innocent crowds that did not have any protection while the soldier had bayonets and guns. The soldiers claimed they heard the captain say fire claiming that " On my asking the soldiers why they fired without orders, they said they heard the word "fire" and supposed it came from me. This might be the case as many of the mob called out "fire, fire!" but the crowd claimed that it was the Captain himself who said to fire. These are two very conflicting stories and it can be interpreted differently depending on the point of view.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre could potentially be defined as massacre. The colonists only had snowballs and rocks, whereas the soldiers had guns and bayonets. Both sides must have been fed up with all built up tension. There is no clear answer on who is at fault, for George Sanderlin claims that "On this, the Captain commanded them to fire . . ." On the other hand, Captain Preston claims that "On my asking the soldiers why they fired without orders, they said they heard the word 'fire' and supposed it came from me." But the soldiers did not necessarily need to listen to the captain to fire a gun. A gun is much more powerful than a stick, and the soldiers should've known that. Some soldiers were probably annoyed that they had to come to the colonies and watch the colonists when they could be in Great Britain.

# data[].attributes.body
Although both sides of the Boston Massacre are most likely biased for themselves, I think the British soldiers fired for their own self defence, since the colonists were the ones who started/picked up the fight. In the citizen's account, it even said that the soldiers were trying to get out of the fight, telling everyone to make way for them. I think that the soldiers shouldn't have fired, but it does make sense that they may have done it for self defence.

# data[].attributes.body
This was not a act us self defense, when they threw those rocks and snowballs, they shouldn't have been able too shoot the crowd. It's like saying in a modern world that a police can shoot anyone with no punishment at all. That's just straight up murder and a massacre.

# data[].attributes.body
People only believe what they want to believe, see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear. This means that both accounts couldn't possibly be entirely accurate due to biased opinions or beliefs. My understanding is that adrenaline, strong emotions and the overall chaos breaking out among both parties clouded the soldiers' AND colonists' ability to make wise decisions in that particular moment. From the captain's account, we can see that he and his men didn't intentionally mean to harm the colonists at first. The shots fired were supposedly a misunderstanding. From the colonist's point of view, he explains that the redcoats were acting excessively violent, and intended to kill unarmed civilians. It SEEMS as though the entire event was a misunderstanding, so I would say the British soldiers were protecting themselves from the hoard of angry colonists (in an act of self defense).

# data[].attributes.body
Both sides are biased to prove their innocents. The British Caption said that the mob started to physically attack them and they fired in defense. Although according to the caption, he didn't say fire but the soldiers and people from the mob heard the word fire. Both groups did not do the right thing, if the mob just protested peacefully, the soldiers would not have fired and if the soldiers were more polite to the Colonists the mob would not have gathered.

# data[].attributes.body
In this situation, there is not really a correct answer, as both sides could be exaggerating or extending their part of the truth. In my opinion, the Boston Massacre was self-defense with good intention to control the crowd, but taken too far when the soldiers open fired.

# data[].attributes.body
While it could be seen as both sides defending themselves, it seems more fitting to label this act a massacre, since the extent of violence at which each side inflicted upon each other was catastrophic. While self defence may have been used during the first initial reaction, it seems as though the protesters took advantage of it because of their fueled rage towards the redcoats. This can even be seen from the perspective of a british soldier as "The mob increased and were striking their clubs one against another, and calling out: "Come on you rascals, you lobster scoundrels, fire if you dare!" This taunts alone already show what hatred the people have towards the redcoats, so why wouldn't they use this massacre as a fighting chance to rebel against them?

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre really was a massacre as the soldiers fired on citizens who had done nothing truly harmful, especially nothing compared to gunshots. Yes, townspeople had sticks, were throwing snowballs, and were making threats. But, do any of those provocations and protests arouse the requirement of opening fire on the crown for "self defence." No. The tension during this time was already so strong, so the soldiers only added to the hatred between the side through opening fire right at the slightest excuse with command. In the account of a caption/British soldier, Captain Preston described what he experienced with, "They then asked me if I intended to order the men to fire. I answered "no." While I was thus speaking, one of the soldiers having received a severe blow with a stick, stepped a little to one side and instantly fired..." With this, it can be seen that the soldiers were waiting for a townsperson to take even the smallest action so they had a "right" to fire. This gives the impression that the soldiers truly did not want peace, as they weren't doing their jobs of trying to keep the colonies at peace and obeying the king. Their anger towards the patriots was revealed the minute they fired, as there was no order to do so. And as for them "mistakenly hearing 'fire' from their captain," pretty much every soldier knew the crowd was just placing threats and the shots began when a soldier was hot with something, not when they heard a command. These pieces of the Boston Massacre conclude it to a be a true and short but violent massacre.

# data[].attributes.body
While history may record the fight and subsequent deaths that occured on the night of March 5, 1770 in Boston, Massachusetts as the Boston Massacre, the incident was really just an act of self-defense by outnumbered and threatened British soldiers; contrary to popular beliefs, the Boston Massacre owes its name largely to the outlandish and hyperbolic propaganda spread by Sons of Liberty members such as Paul Revere and the biased opinions of the American public, who had been previously angered by the taxes, land mandates, and the arrival of British troops. A number of problems exist with calling the incident a massacre. While many claim that British soldiers fired into a crowd of "unarmed citizens," this statement is simply false: as known, the mob was armed with snowballs, clubs, and the strength of numbers. By placing 200 Bostonians against a dozen or so British regulars, you can hardly say that the crowd was "defenseless." In addition, it is unclear if the captain even ordered his soldiers to fire into the crowd, as Captain Prescott claims he did not. This is in accordance with the testimonies which say that the crowd had taunted the soldiers, which is really just against common sense; by calling the soldiers cowards for not firing upon themselves, the crowd may as well invited themselves to Hades. In addition, even George Sanderlin, a patriot, admits that the crowd had fired "snowballs ... and a townsman with a cudgel struck him over the hands with such force that he dropt his firelock; and rushing forward aimed a blow at the Captain's head, which grazed his hat and fell pretty heavy on his arm." This means that the crowd had provoked the soldiers and had actually assaulted them, therefore giving claim to the argument of self-defense. To summarize, the crowd, which largely outnumbered the soldiers, was armed with sticks and hit the soldier and a British officer, upon which they were fired upon in order to avoid any injuries to the British regulars and their captain.

# data[].attributes.body
It is hard to come up with a definite opinion on whether the actions of the soldiers were justified. The evidence presented is conflicting, and was susceptible to bias since there was active hostility between the soldiers and colonists before the Boston Massacre. However, both perspectives agree that the colonists were threatening the soldiers, trying to hit them with clubs, and that one nearly hit Captain Preston’s head and hit his arm hard. With this we have to consider the soldiers’ perspectives. Did they believe their lives were in danger in that moment? Did they believe that the colonists had the intention of killing them? If that were the case, I would argue that the soldier’s were acting in self-defense. Guns are much more powerful than clubs, but the question is did the soldiers believe they had to resort to their rifles in order to defend themselves? What other option did they have? If they couldn’t fire, they would have been left completely defenseless against the power of 60 or so men, especially since there were only 8 soldiers.

But even then, there was just so much commotion that we can’t say either perspectives are telling the truth, and without accurate facts, opinions can’t be formed.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre can be rightfully defined as a massacre. Not only did the soldiers open fire on a crowd of citizens, but they did so unwarranted on unarmed citizens. This is simply inhumane because the power of a rifle clearly outweighs the power of a snowball or a club. Even if angry mobs of people were shouting, throwing snowballs, or threatening the soldiers, they should of been able to maintain their calm, and handle the situation in an effective, composed way. The soldiers took advantage of the unarmed citizens, retaliated when they showed violence, and caused the riot to transform into an armed battle. According to George Sanderlin in his account, “On this, the Captain commanded them to fire, and more snow-balls coming, he again said, “ . . . Fire, be the consequences what it will!" The soldiers decided to use violence to combat violence, which is why the Boston Massacre lead to so many unnecessary casualties. It was a terrible massacre of citizens and lays in the hands of the British

# data[].attributes.body
After reading the first article I was sure that it was done for self-defense but after reading the second article my mind changed completely and I realized one of the articles contains false information. After thinking about it I saw that the soldier needed to find a way to get out of the situation because he would be guilty if he were to command the shooting, but the other article was written by a random citizen who didn't have anything to do with the murders, so was less likely to lie about the event because it didn't really affect him. The Boston Massacre was indeed a Massacre, for even if the soldier is telling the truth they shouldn't have shot their guns at unarmed people.

# data[].attributes.body
Boston citizens started the whole disaster while British soldiers acted in self-defense. For instance, Captain Preston "heard them [the townspeople] use the most cruel threat against the troop", which started it. The townspeople thought the captain of the British Soldiers ordered them to fire, that led to the mob calling out, "Come on you rascals, you lobster scoundrels, fire if you dare!" They then threw snow-balls at the soldiers, which made the soldiers instantly attack back and defend themselves. They fired because they thought it was part of their "order". Overall, the Boston Massacre was an act of self-defense.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion the Boston Massacre was just a self defense only in that event. Because of the taxes, given the Patriots decided to humilate and start teasing the Red Coats, which first they started during that event, and second the recoats were just doing there jobs defending and then patriots just came in to tease them.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was indeed a massacre. The phrase "self-defense" means that someone was provoked or injured, and was merely defending their health. However, the troops only fired because they thought the order to fire was given. This means they were not defending themselves; they misunderstood some offhand chatter and basically massacred the patriots. In Captain Preston's report, he says that the soldiers thought the order to fire had come from him. This means they were did not fire in self-defense.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the Boston Massacre was a bit of both massacre and self-defense. The citizens were provoking and attacking the British troops, but the troops ended up killing 5 citizens and this could have been prevented if both groups just stood down.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the Boston Massacre was an act of Self-Defence from the soldiers. The citizens were throwing snowballs at them and hitting them with huge sticks. The soldiers only fired thinking it was an order form their boss. In the end the townspeople were the ones that caused the fight and made the soldiers fire. The soldiers had no intention of firing without orders, and the boss has no intention in giving those orders.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was self-defense and a massacre. The citizens were the ones who started the fight, but the soliders shouldn't have reacted so violently. They ended up killing 5 citizens which is not right.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the Boston Massacre was an act of Self-Defence from the soldiers, because they felt threatened. On the other hand, They misheard and attempted to obey the captain and fire, but he never said to fire. It was the townspeople.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the Boston Massacre was self defense to the soldiers. While reading Captain Prescott's account, I noticed that the protesters were provoking them, daring the soldiers to shoot them. After this, the protesters threw trash and snow at the soldiers. This led to the soldiers shooting and killing the people in the town.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was a Massacre because the British Troops were mad which caused them to fight back.

# data[].attributes.body
To me, I have several prospective insights on this incident. Now in a legal sense, the soldiers in question have a castle doctrine in which if they are to be attacked they can defend themselves by whatever means necessary, just like how any can and should. So in that legal aspect, they have merit in that argument. However, when it comes to a moral issue I believe that it was unjustified because to fire without proper warning is a unfortunate issue in which people will die in that unfortunate event. No warning was given in a timely manner.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the Boston Massacre was self defense that went too far. The British troops had been insulted even before this event. The frustration that built up led the British troops to fight back violently. When Captain Prescott said, "Come on you rascals, you lobster scoundrels, fire if you dare!" It meant that the British troops were provoked. There was "a great number of heavy clubs and snow-balls being thrown at [the soldiers]" which meant that the British troops were assaulted. However, the violence ended up with several dead, so the British troops went too far in their self defense. Because of the confusion of the event; however, anything could have happened.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the "Boston Massacre" was both a Massacre and self-defence. The soldiers were aggravated and maybe could have been scared, but there action were immature. The public should have rioted in a less violent way and the soldiers should have reacted in a less violent way.

# data[].attributes.body
Title

upload

link

search_web

camera

more_horiz

delete
Seoyeong Jo (Chloe)
Avatar of anonymous
Anonymous
1m
Seoyeong Jo (Chloe)

# data[].attributes.body
I think the Boston Massacre was both self defense and massacre. Provoking soldiers was citizens' fault, but it was not worth firing.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was a case of self defense. In Captain Preston's account, he states, "On my asking the soldiers why they fired without orders, they said they heard the word 'fire' and supposed it came from me." The citizens were actively provoking the soldiers and shouting at them to fire. Because of this, the soldiers mistook this for their captain shouting at them to fire and so they followed their "orders". Some of the soldiers were also being attacked by people with clubs. Therefore, the Boston Massacre was an act of self defense.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the Boston Massacre was self defense that was extreme. The citizens were throwing snowballs and hitting the soldiers with clubs. As a result, many soldiers became aggravated and shot their guns at the crowd. These soldiers had believed that the captain had ordered them to shoot, when it could have been the crowd taunting them, so when other soldiers started shooting, many followed along. Each side says different things about the captain's intentions to shoot. There is not enough unbiased evidence, since both sides do not want the blame, so it may have happened because of both sides.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the Boston Massacre was self defense. However, at the same time I also believe that the Crown had the opportunity to end, or even stop all revolts by passing laws that the people in the colonies would find fair. After all, the people did deserve to get a more right rule.

# data[].attributes.body
It was both. I think the townspeople provoked the soldiers, but they should, in my opinion, fired warning shots first. The townspeople tried to club and snowballed the soldiers, making them (soldiers) a lot more triggerhappy.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that it's both self defense and massacre. The citizens were provoking the soldiers, and this led to the soldiers firing. However, they overreacted and didn't need to kill the citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
This can be both self-defense and a massacre. The citizens were taunting and provoking the soldiers, and the soldiers in self-defense fired at them. I believe that the soldiers' overreacted and did not need to massacre the citizens, but still this can seen as both.

# data[].attributes.body
I firmly stand with the statement that the British were at fault for the Boston Massacre. While the townspeople were in fact protesting British rule, Hugh White initiated the whole thing. As stated in the article titled Boston Massacre linked on the first slide, “At some point, White fought back and struck a colonist with his bayonet. In retaliation, the colonists pelted him with snowballs, ice and stones.” So, White, a British soldier, was the cause of the colonists throwing snowballs and yelling insults. This later led to additional gunshots. In addition, Captain Preston indirectly claimed the British were at fault since another soldier misheard commands and started to fire at the crowd which led to a lot of confusion. If the soldier had listened more carefully and not fired until commanded, the situation might have not escalated so quickly. In addition, George Sanderlin heard the Captain commands to fire. All in all, I think that Boston Massacre was and still is true to its name.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was both a massacre and self-defense. Both the citizens and soldiers were to blame. The townspeople were threatening the soldiers to harm them, so they fought back out of self-defense. Although, I don't think that shooting the townspeople was the right approach to defend themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the Boston Massacre was both a "massacre" and a "self-defense," for both sides should take at least some blame. The townspeople shouldn't have provoked the soldiers, but the soldiers (basically) shouldn't have fired under any circumstance. However, both accounts are liable to biases since according to the accounts, that one Boston citizen had claimed that the commanding officer had ordered them to fire while the commanding officer said otherwise. Therefore, we can never really know what happened that day.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was self defense. The townspeople started the whole fight/massacre by taunting and provoking the soldiers.

# data[].attributes.body
The soldiers were being harassed by the townspeople and were tired of the nonsense, just wanting to get out of the situation. The soldiers heard the word 'fire' from the crowd and instinctively shot into the crowd, and after the crowd immediately disbursed, meaning the preventative measures clearly worked. Captain Preston clearly said that he never intended to order his men to fire.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the events of the Boston Massacre were both a result of self defense and a massacre. The citizens provoked the British soldiers by throwing snowballs at them, hitting them with sticks and clubs, and taunting them, causing many of the soldiers to act in self defense. However, I don't think that shooting into the crowd was the right way for the soldiers to defend themselves because sticks and snowballs are much weaker weapons than guns, making this event partially a massacre.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it was a little bit of both. Te situation escalated quickly, and at first The soldiers may have been acting in self defense. However, they were unnecessarily cruel and excessive. They killed so many people, when I'm sure after the first gunshot many of them were running away. it was violent and irresponsible, even though they were doing their job.

# data[].attributes.body
I think not enough unbiased, definitive evidence is provided to put one side in the wrong and the other in the right. Both accounts are liable to biases and their sources could have bent the truth in their favor. Furthermore, the accounts contradict each other; while Captain Preston denied that orders to fire at the crowd were given, Sanderlin confirmed the idea. It is possible the Captain was attempting to preserve his reputation through this denial, in which the event would have been a deliberate slaughter, or the citizens and soldiers could have both mistaken the crowd's chanting for orders to fire, in which the soldiers are not completely blameless, but justified in their actions. Both sides utilized unnecessary violence to make their point, and both are at fault.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was both a massacre and an act of self defense. Both the citizens and the soldiers were to blame for this incident. The citizens were throwing snowballs and insulting the British soldiers. But the soldiers thought they had heard their commander to fire and shots fired. Both sides were to blame as the mobs of angry people were unable to control their anger and the soldiers had mistakenly fired.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the Boston Massacre was self defense because the townspeople were threatening the soldiers to harm them, therefore in their defense they were going to fight back to protect themselves. Not only was it self defense but in a way an accident because the patriots kept yelling fire. So the soldiers were mistaken and thought that it was their commander so they fired towards the townspeople.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was a massacre. Snowballs are no need for the soldiers to fire at the people, that would only make them angrier. The Soldiers could've of simply given a warning or just shoved their way through. Since there are two sides to it, no one will really know an unbiased view of what happened

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was both a massacre and self-defense. Both were to blame. The citizens provoked the soldiers by mocking them and shouting "Fire, Fire". The soldiers thought that this was their captain giving the orders and fired leading to four casualties

# data[].attributes.body
THe Boston Massacre was both a massacre and a use of self-defense. The citizens were being extremely rude to the soldiers by mocking them and saying "fire, fire" and provoking the soldiers since they thought it was an order from their captain.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was, in fact, a massacre. The soldiers were understandably upset toward the colonists, but this does not grant violence. Using the shouting of the word "fire" was simply an excuse to pass their actions as justified. The colonists were throwing snowballs, not firing bullets. The soldiers are their as enforces, and the way they acted was unacceptable.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was both a massacre and self-defense. Both were to blame. I believe that the citizens were being mean and calling names and throwing snowballs. But I also believe that the soldiers were probably also shoving people out of the way. In the end the townspeople had no right to be mean but the soldiers had no need to fire.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was an act of self defense against the townspeople. The townspeople were throwing snowballs and carrying clubs which could have provoked the soldiers. The guard also heard the mob shouting fire which could have confused the other soldiers into firing the crowd of people. Of course with two opposite opinions there is some biased parts of the story about who's fault it is and we don't know entirely which parts of the story is true.

# data[].attributes.body
While the troops were being taunted and being called names, this was no need for killing. They were just mad and did not control their anger.

# data[].attributes.body
Depending on the British soldier, the Boston Massacre could be seen as and incident or self-defense. As I read through the perspective of both the British soldier and the regular townsfolk, it was clear that they both exaggerated or purposely excluded some parts of the story in order to support their own opinion: Whether it was self-defense or massacre. What I did understand from both stories. however, was that some soldiers fired on instinct after being attacked, and some soldiers fired with the intention to shoot the crowd and wound them. Both crowds were at fault, for aggravating the soldiers and shooting the crowd purposely, but it shouldn't be held against either side.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was an act of self defense. On the third slide, it states a British soldier "heard [townspeople] use the most cruel threats against the troops." The townspeople were taunting the troops and were asking for a fight. They made the first attack against the troops and the soldiers had to use self defense in order to not get hurt. This incident came to be because of confusion and chaos. It started to be called a massacre because one person was killed and a few injured, but it was only due to an act of self-defense by the soldiers.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it was self defence because the people were attacking them and clubbing them plus the people said fire and dared them too

# data[].attributes.body
Someone is the crowd had yelled, "Fire! Fire!" and the soldiers thinking it was the Captain had fired. All of the soldiers started firing until 7-8 guns were discharged. So in conclusion the Boston Massacre was simply an order of Self-Defense as well as a Massacre.

# data[].attributes.body
The soldiers and the people both thought that what they did was just,  they were both at fault, making it the Boston Massacre. During this massacre, the people were angry at the soldiers, so they threw snowballs at them. As a result, the soldiers shot at the angry crowd, since someone called "fire". It wasn't right that the people threw things because of their anger, but the soldiers shouldn't have shot at an unarmed crowd.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was an act of self-defense because according to the British account, the townspeople yelled, "fire", which confused the soldiers, who fired because they thought the order came from their commander. Even though the American account says that the commander said the fire, it could've been confused with the soldiers as well.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was an act of self-defense because the townspeople threw snowballs, hit the soldiers with clubs, and threatened them causing the soldiers to defend themselves. Also the townspeople yelled, "fire" which caused the soldiers to mistake the voice as their captain's and shoot at them, killing five townspeople.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was an unfortunate incident that was not intended by either side. From both accounts, both sides did not want to initiate a potentially fatal fight. According to Captain Preston, a British soldier, the soldiers fired because of a misunderstanding that they were instructed to. It was later discovered that the citizens had confused the soldiers, crying out "fire" in order to tempt them. In the midst of the chaos of the citizens' protest, a misunderstanding is reasonable. In fact, Preston reports that when well-behaved citizens "t asked [him] if [he] intended to order the men to fire, [he] answered 'no.'" This shows that the redcoats who fired the shots were simply following misheard orders. However, it is true that many individuals also fired as a means of self-defense and display of power against the insults which the colonists hurled at them. In conclusion, the massacre was likely a result of a misunderstanding, coupled with the brewing hatred and division between the two sides.

# data[].attributes.body
Even when unintentional, the killing of citizens cannot be explained with simple misunderstandings. Without the anger of the British soldiers towards the colonists, I doubt they would have fired their rifles. The accident use of "fire" was simply a catalyst for their actions. It serves as a convenient excuse to help hide their underlying distaste towards the colonists. It turned into a Massacre when a colonist died. Soldiers serve to protect the peace, rather than turning against their own citizens. Even when provoked, they have a duty to be responsible, and not to act out of anger.

# data[].attributes.body
The soldiers attacked unarmed people, this lead to the towns people throwing and attacking soldiers. Without these unnecessary attacks on unarmed citizens, the incident wouldn't occur.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was an act of self defense. Captain Preston, a British soldier, said the citizens "use the most cruel threats against the troops." The colonists kept threatening to harm the soldiers, so they fired in self defense. Also, the colonists were shouting "fire" which was misleading to the soldiers who thought that it was an order from their captain. The colonists are all to blame for this incident.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was a Massacre even though the Citizens protested in a quite violent way. In George Sanderlin's account, it is stated that Samuel Atwood asked the redcoats if they intended to murder people, and they answered "Yes". Even though the shooting order was a misunderstanding, they were still willing to kill people.

# data[].attributes.body
The boston massacre was to blame for both sides. On one hand, it was wrong for the soldiers to fire at the people, even if they heard "fire" and it not coming from captain Preston. On the other hand, it wasn't right for the people to throw snowballs and insult the soldiers either, which could provoke them to fight back.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was the fault of both sides. The Boston citizens were at fault because they taunted and attacked the soldiers. The soldiers were at fault because they shouldn't have fired. Even if they were being taunted they should have stood their ground and waited for a better potential solution. The citizens should have never started a violent protest.

# data[].attributes.body
The Boston Massacre was an act of self defense on the soldier's part because, the people of the town continuously rioted and protested. They initiated the violence caused by the soldiers and unfortunately paid the price. The colonists shouted "fire" and the soldiers mistook this as their captain giving their order to fire. The colonists also threw rocks and used sticks to hurt the soldiers. The soldiers needed to defend themselves from the oncoming attacks.

# data[].attributes.body
The event that happened in boston was, in my opinion, an act if self defense because the boston citizens were harming the soldiers with sticks and snowballs. In both testimonies its clear that the civilians were actively trying to harm the soldiers. The soldier count states that people were repeatedly shouting fire over and over in any attempt to provoke the soldiers and were using clubs to physically harm them. Yes, the soldiers may have gone too far by killing 3 civilians, but the civilians have no excuses when it comes down to the fact that they were trying to instigate the soldiers Into firing.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, the Boston Massacre was indeed a massacre, since the soldiers fired at unarmed citizens. The Boston residents were merely launching snowballs and throwing cruel threats. This was no reason for the soldiers to fire as the citizens were simply expressing their opinion about British rule. Moreover, the soldiers should have been responsible and peacefully taper down the rioting.  They shouldn't have fired at the colonists just by hearing the word fire. By doing this, the soldiers had created more disputes between the Britsh and the colonists.