It would appear that a lot of people here need to brush up on their history. Specifically if they're American, which I know you're not. So I don't blame any Euros for not understanding why that happened.

Did it ever occur to anyone why John Adams, someone who would become a founding father and US president, chose to defend them? First was a matter of principle, something I think is missing these days. Second was that there was indeed evidence that those soldiers fired in self-defense instead of slaughtering innocents. Things that would come out of the trial from testimony of said crowd that had been fired on.

Pretty important things too, such as the things, like clubs, being hurled at the soldiers. Yelling out phrases such as "knock them over" or "kill them". Or even what prompted the first solider to fire, which was a man hitting him hard enough to cause the solider to be knocked down. Once that first shot came out, the rest followed before the captain forced them to stop. There is reason for the jury to acquit them given the facts of the case. it should also be noted that two of those soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter.

I don't know if people are upvoting for the second half of this statement or for the absurd bail part. Because if it's the former, stop being retarded and maybe see why it ended up being that way. A lot of things in life or history are hardly that black and white. Honestly, I would think that people that generally seem to oppose the #metoo movement to understand why said movement is terrible.