Protestors Shot in Boston

 It was a cold winter night in Boston. The kind of wet cold that seeps into your bones. The kind that reminds you of all the reasons you are angry.

The privileged few held the purse strings and manipulated the strings of power. The underrepresented minority could do little but rage.

A group of protestors gathered on this night, angrily confronting the armed authorities. The shouts soon escalated to rocks and ice being flung at the peacekeepers. As the clash grew, shots rang out and several protestors lay dead, dying, or injured, included a man of color.

The propaganda machine and the media outlets immediately mobilized for action, whipping up public opinion in a frenzied call for justice! These armed thugs must be tried and hung. Whatever the reason, the authorities killed some of our own. This Is our chance to sway opinion to our side. Regardless of what happened and how it happened, this is how we will finally get what we deserve.

But not everyone felt this way...

Prominent in this revolutionary movement was an attorney that did not believe distorting the facts and rushing to judgement at the expense of a few, a few that may not even be guilty, was the way to justice. He believed strongly in due process for all, even those that represented the system that he vehemently opposed.

In the face of the overwhelming opposition of public opinion, he represented the shooters. He did not believe that due process, equal rights, and the truth itself should be sacrificed to ensure that the “powers that be” are replaced by another set of “powers that be”, rulers that might be just as easily corrupted when it suited them. He risked his life and livelihood to defend his political opponents, believing they were, in this instance, perhaps innocent.

If change was to come, it must be true, systemic change. Not just an exchange of rulers making decisions that are most beneficial to their side, regardless of truth, real justice, or real change.

The year: 1770

The Attorney: John Adams

Change did come after the Boston Massacre. But it came, not as a result of the ire of the public reacting to what they believed happened, regardless of the facts. It did not come at the expense of due process.

It came with a strong belief in truth, due process, and in a way that set the stage for constitutional protections we still enjoy today.