Civil unrest or rights? - Sm Posted: Sep 19th, 2017 - 5:14 pm
In Boston, during a verbal dispute, an unarmed teenage boy was forcefully hit in the head with the butt of a rifle by local law enforcement.
Word of the incident spread quickly and a large number of locals gathered in the street where the incident had happened to protest almost immediately.
As the crowd grew, angry protesters shouted slogans; some business owners, fearing property damage, shut their doors. The local authorities called for uniformed backup; backup came, well armed.
The assembly was deemed "unlawful," and the crowd was ordered to disperse. The protesters began to throw snowballs in response.
"In response, multiple uniformed law enforcers fired on the crowd. The first protester to die was a black man and the authorities justified the shooting by claiming that they "feared for their lives".
The year was 1770, the authorities were British soldiers, the protest would later be called the Boston Massacre, and the first protester killed in that conflict was Crispus Attucks, a black man considered by many to be a heroic American patriot and the first casualty of the American Revolution.
If, while reading this story, you found yourself siding with the authorities and thinking that the protesters should have dispersed when ordered, and/or that the protesters armed with snowballs and sticks deserved to be met with deadly force by armed law enforcement, be aware that you chose the side of the tyrant King George III not the American patriots."
And ponder that.
Post A Reply Reply By Email Options
Complete Discussion Below: (  marks the location of current message within thread)
|
