3 ms·
Agree. Remember the British were already under order to raid the towns for supplies ('powder and ball'). In Lexington, the militia had made a show of force, fol
by exabrial 6y ago
Agree. Remember the British were already under order to raid the towns for supplies ('powder and ball'). In Lexington, the militia had made a show of force, following which gunfire was exchanged, and the British officers authorized a "huzzah" in celebration of the death of several militia members.
Quite a stretch to call resisting an army under orders to seize munitions by force "murder" per say, this was a clear act of self defense.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoEven if you don't side with the militia, by any reasonably modern code of ethics and rules of engagement "resisting a uniformed army by force" is completely and totally fair game. Armies exist to project state violence. Sometimes people take them up on the offer.
- pjc50 6y agoI'd be interested to see if anyone applied this argument to Al-Quaeida in Iraq against coalition forces.