Can this be justified?

Can this be justified?

Attached: Boston_Massacre-gravure (1).jpg (999x633, 228K)

Shooting rebels is always justified.

They were just testing out new rifles, killing in the name of progress can always be justfied


Attached: 1512937898278.jpg (298x312, 14K)

No, but neither can a large amount of atrocities committed by the US. The Founding Fathers would have hanged their heads in shame at My Lai.

>Armed, dangerous troops shooting into a peaceful gathering of civilians
>Justifiable in any world

It was literally justified in court by John Adams.

>killing in the name of progress can always be justfied
Hey I got a new gun I've been working on, wanna help me figure out if it works?

>be american
>get shot

Q: Why did the Americans revolt?
A: Because they could.

This is why the 2nd amendment is necessary for a free state.

Attached: 04037D3E-FA1E-4BAD-968B-DB87FD7B5B58.jpg (1261x1600, 437K)

Nigga wat, they were throwing ice and rocks at armed soldiers, and despite repeatedly told to stop, the crowd carried on and got closer and closer to the infantrymen again despite being told to get back

>realize ragtag shit country the built became fucking huge superpower
>fucking huge military and shit
>looks like they're colonizing fucking gooks once owned by France

Suffice to say, I'm sure they'd be happy

>he thinks the Founding Fathers would have approved of colonialism and tyranny over foreign peoples

The Founding Fathers cared about their own freedom, and not a molecule of turd for anyone else's. These people were fighting for lower taxes and the ability to conquer Native American tribal territory at will. Self determination is good, but they were only ideologically devoted to their own.

They weren't really fighting for lower taxes though. Taxes in America under the Brits were practically nothing, and they only went up after independence.

They were fighting for lower taxes for the landlords. After independence, the landlords only gave their taxes to the US government, which was in their back pocket.

And the landlords were the only ones who could vote too. So much for taxation without representation...

The crowd were rowdy, throwing shit and punches, even cornered one of the redcoats, trying to wrestle the gun out of his hands. The redcoats showed extreme restraint that day, compared to the shit they usually pulled off in their colonies.

>tfw you realize Britain were the good guys all along

You should have known this all along.

this is news to you?

Yes, if you want to start a rebellion

just bongs being bongs, shooting up unarmed civilians seems to be the national pastime.

>killed 5 wh*tes
>led to war that killed 200,000 wh*tes and gutted four wh*te empires
100% justified.

They had it coming.

Attached: Peter Oliver.jpg (257x283, 23K)

Rebel scum

>attack soldiers with deadly weapons
>act surprised when they attack back

>pebbles are deadly weapons


>there were a dozen of persons with clubs, surrounded the party; twelve sailors with clubs, were by much an overmatch to eight soldiers, chained there by the order and command of their officer, to stand in defence of the Sentry, not only so, but under an oath to stand there, i.e. to obey the lawful command of their officer, as much, Gentlemen of the jury, as you are under oath to determine this cause by law and evidence; clubs they had not, and they could not defend themselves with their bayonets against so many people; it was in the power of the sailors to kill one half or the whole of the party, if they had been so disposed; what had the soldiers to expect, when twelve persons armed with clubs, (sailors too, between whom and soldiers, there is such an antipathy, that they fight as naturally when they meet, as the elephant and Rhinoceros) were daring enough, even at the time when they were loading their guns, to come up with their clubs, and smite on their guns; what had eight soldiers to expect from such a set of people? Would it have been a prudent resolution in them, or in any body in their situation, to have stood still, to see if the sailors would knock their brains out, or not? Had they not all the reason in the world to think, that as they had done so much, they would proceed farther? Their clubs were as capable of killing as a ball, an hedge stake is known in the law books as a weapon of death, as much as a sword, bayonet, or musket.

What did John Adams mean by this?

Yes, and it was, in court.

Around blacks, the Irish, and sailors
Never relax, but vanquish the disorder

kent state anyone?

Why did Paul engrave the dog?

Oh I didn't realize the rioters were just skipping stones across a lake you fucking invalid

This is your brain on propaganda. A rock to the head is pretty dangerous, user. Throwing one at someone armed is a good way to get shot.

The virgin Adams cucked and vanquished by the chad Jefferson.

Read a book

yes it was self defense



Shooting americans is always justified.

>act like nogs towards a group of armed sentries standing guard
>ayo lobster boi do it do it faget show me that heat
>*gets shot*

Like cool you have a bundle of complaints about being a colony and all, but what did you think was going to fucking happen?

Attached: 1485985421399.png (375x375, 98K)

Ahaha, John Adams wanted them aquitted it wasnt even an ambiguous case, French soldiers would have left no survivors and we all know how trigger happy americans became. It was the perfect level of response

>tfw america began with a chimpout
>Blacks and Irish lawfully shot by honourable white officers of the law
>American "patriots" still insist they were good boys, dindu nuffin despite absolute evidence to the contrary