Pro Colonist View

There are two popular views of the Boston Massacre, the pro-colonist view and the pro-British view. Neither of the views are entirely accurate, the true events of that night are found in the ‘middle ground’ of the accounts. No matter how truthful one account is believed to be, it is impossible for it to be entirely accurate because they couldn't know the intent of the opposing side.
The popular pro-colonist view is that the colonists were completely innocent and that the British officers attacked them. Paul Revere’s etching popularized this view of the Boston Massacre, of Captain Preston ordering the officers to fire into a crowd of innocent colonists. “In about 10 minutes I heard the Officer say fire” (William Wyatt). The pro-colonist view
shows that very event Wyatt described, but there are also many accounts disagreeing, stating that he wouldn't order the officers to fire because he was standing in front of the soldiers when the first shot was fired. In many accounts it also states, “one of the soldiers having received a severe blow with a stick, stepped a little on one side and instantly fired” (Captain Preston). In a pro-colonist account it states that a soldier was hit with a cane over the hands but fired beforehand.
The popular pro-British view of the Boston Massacre is described in Captain Preston’s written account of the event. The colonists provoked a British sentry outside of the Customs House until the troops came to his aid. The troops tried to calm down a mob that started to form in the street. Colonists were pelting the officers with snowballs and one hit a soldier with a stick, causing his gun to go off. The following shots were fired because they had heard the crowd chanting at them to do so, challenging them, and thought that it was Preston.
The ‘middle ground’ so to speak, of some of the accounts shows what most likely actually occurred.
Some colonists were harassing a British sentry that stood guard in front of the Customs House. Captain Preston was informed and sent 7-8 men to protect him and then proceeded to follow himself. The men stood in a half circle with charged bayonets and loaded guns, although according to Preston’s account, shouldn't have been loaded. The colonists would have seen this as a threat, regardless of what the British soldiers intents were, so, they defended themselves by pelting the officers with snowballs. When one man hit an officer over the hands with a stick (or a cane) his gun went off. The other officers took this as their cue to fire, even though Captain Preston never ordered them too. To add to the confusion of whether or not they were to fire, the colonists were challenging them to actually fire.
Both the colonists and the British are at fault for the Boston Massacre. The British saw the colonists attacking them with snowballs as they were trying to stop a riot, with their guns and bayonets readied in case of emergency. The colonists saw the officers show up with charged bayonets and (presumably) loaded guns aimed at them. As anybody who believed that they were in danger would, they defended themselves in the only way they could, not knowing that actually added to the problem.
Therefore, no party present at the Boston Massacre was completely innocent, whether they were aware of
it or not. Neither the pro-British accounts or the pro-colonist accounts were more correct than the next. The most accurate information can only be found in the ‘middle ground’ of the accounts.