Battles between “educated citizens” wanting true justice and mass media driven “compliant citizens” wanting blood when sensational killings occur are nothing new in America—with one of the most noteworthy of them having occurred on the evening of 5 March 1770—which was when a lone British sentry was accosted by a mob of American colonial citizens—who was quickly joined by eight of his fellow soldiers that reinforced him—and as the angry mob around these soliders then grew to several hundred, who hurled snowballs, ice, and stones striking these soliders—these frightened soldiers opened fire killing five civilians—and today is now known as the Boston Massacre.
With there being hundreds of witnesses to this massacre, these soliders were quickly arrested and charged with murder—and their guilty verdicts were all assured because the mass media proclaimed the evidence of this crime was overwhelming and indisputable—evidence, however, not convincing enough for one Boston lawyer, no matter how many witnesses there were—and whose love of truth and fair justice caused him to risk his life, reputation and career and step forward to defend these despised soldiers every one else knew were guilty.
This courageous Boston lawyer first had the trial of these soliders delayed “so that passions could cool”—and during the first trial won the acquittal of these soliders’ commanding officer, Captain Thomas Preston, “because it was impossible to prove that he ordered his soldiers to open fire”—and in the second trial for the soldiers themselves, won acquittals for six of them, with the two who had fired directly into the crowd being convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter, as the facts and reality showed they were nothing more than scared teenagers—an astounding feat accomplished for truth and justice by this Boston lawyer named John Adams—who later went on to become a Founding Father of America and the 2nd President of the United States—and whose stirring words to open the trial of these soldiers are as meaningful now as they were then:
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.
But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of [all] security whatsoever.