Fun fact: the Philadelphia Police Department also likes starting fires. 35 years ago, they used plastic explosives to blow up the house of the MOVE group, killing most of the people inside (including five children). Instead of putting out the fires, the city allowed a good chunk of the predominantly black working class neighborhood to burn to the ground. The city did get sued in 2005 in a civil trial for burning down the houses, but no one from the city government has been criminally charged for the attack. That seems like the kind of terrorist act that the FBI would investigate, but I guess they have different priorities.
> There was an armed standoff with police,[6] who lobbed tear gas canisters at the building. The MOVE members fired at them, and a gunfight with semi-automatic and automatic firearms ensued.[33] Police used more than ten thousand rounds of ammunition before Commissioner Sambor ordered that the compound be bombed.
Seems like the bombing was perhaps not an unreasonable response? I mean, in this case an armed militia fortified itself in a bunker-like property and fired at the police. What were they expecting?
> The MOVE members fired at them, and a gunfight with semi-automatic and automatic firearms ensued.
This language is so evasive that it could accurately describe "MOVE shot at police once with a muzzle-loader, and police returned fire with semi-automatic and automatic weapons."
Words like "compound" and "bunker" don't have a particular meaning either--they are just there to sound cult-y and scary.
If this is actually a justified situation, why not tell the story straight? Why not say that MOVE used semi-automatic and automatic weapons if that's what happened?
Yep, definitely the important details are not present in this picture. However, firing even one shot at the police who's trying to arrest you justifies use of whatever force necessary to subdue the attacker.
> Is it wise to have children in the same building from which you intend to shoot at the police?
Just so you can't accuse me of sidestepping the question, my answer to this is obviously "no".
Feel free to answer whether you think that killing 5 children and burning 61 homes was necessary to subdue the attacker at any time.
The fact is, if you literally can't even say that burning children to death was wrong, you don't get to go around pretend you have an ethical stance on arson.
Yes, it’s telling that even mentioning the full context will upset people. Hence your downvotes. People really want to believe that the Philly PD was firebombing black neighborhoods for fun.
Specifically - "Although firefighters had earlier drenched the building prior to the bombing, after the fire broke out, officials said they feared that MOVE would shoot at the firefighters, so held them back.
Goode later testified at a 1996 trial that he had ordered the fire to be put out after the bunker had burned. Sambor said he received the order, but the fire commissioner testified that he did not receive the order. Ramona Africa, one of the two MOVE survivors from the house, said that police fired at those trying to escape"
From the links, 60 neighboring homes burned down from it, no fire department presence. So...regardless of the reason, "the fire was allowed to burn".
Just saying, certain people are very very happy to point out the violence of the oppressed, yet throw a hissy fit when people point out the violence of the oppressor.
No, just trying to highlight the double standard when it comes to how law enforcement are treated compared to everyone else.
I also wouldn't classify destroying the car of a government organization as violence. It's destruction, but fairly mild compared to burning people's homes to the ground. And even then, I wouldn't think to compare property damage to actual violence, like murder.
That you can't estimate how current processors will match your expectations based on how 42 years ago processor matched expectations of people living at the time.
If 42 years ago Intel sold a processor that burned my house down, I might not be the biggest fan of Intel even 42 years later. This isn't about expectations, it's about reputation. Not everyone has a goldfish memory.
Move was a group who's guidelines looked like cult material and who's members had a lot of criminal convictions. A cop got shot up and the mayor asked them to disband.
Keep in mind, this is a country where you are innocent until prooven guily. The cops don't get to legally go form hit squads and go shooting people they don't like. This isn't the 1800's.
I can certainly agree overwhelming force is not in general a good answer because it emphasizes and strengthens the belief the police are not to be trusted. Would you come out of a building someone was actively firing into? Surrounding the compound at Waco and firing into it was just dumb when dealing with a doomsday cult because it's just going to reinforce their beliefs.
The correct way to look at this tragedy is many police officers were previously soldiers, so keep in mind when they see a cult, their mindset is to kill or capture or dispense with extreme force and what you get is a whole lot of stupidity as compromise.
