The only two responses I read showed that the two people who responded had no real idea of what is going on and confirmed that you people really are idiots, but... (I did try to dumb down the questions after that though).
Actual outcome of the Boston Massacre was that deadly force was used and the soldiers were tried (with John Adams being their legal counsel).
The Colonists still saw themselves as British at this point and were demanding their rights as Britons. One of those rights is due process of law. This concept goes back to chapter 39 of Magna Carta, in which King John promised that “[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”
The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures.
If you were inclined to say that deadly force was justified, then you happen to side with the redcoats! In fact, you are saying that there was no reason for any of the further unrest which was the war for independence.
You wouldn't have prosecuted them because the Redcoats did the right thing.
Think about that.
BTW, if I were able to go back in time I would use modern crowd control methods to deal with this situation--NOT DEADLY FORCE.
Anyone who thinks that I would condone the use of deadly force against UNARMED Civilians clearly is not paying too much attention to what I am saying.
Or incapable of understanding what I have said.
