This sounds vaguely reminiscent of the Boston Massacre (paranoid occupying troops in a hostile environment surrounded by angry locals and no one knows for sure who fired first).

Of course, in the original, the British submitted to having their troops tried for crimes arising from the incident in an American Colonial court. Defended by a Boston brewer and sometimes lawyer (and cousin of the second President) named John Adams, the troops were acquitted of the most serious of the charges brought and none were imprisoned. I wonder if that would happen in this case?