5 ms·

From Wikipedia article: > There was an armed standoff with police,[6] who lobbed tear gas canisters at the building. The MOVE members fired at them, and a gunf

From Wikipedia article: > 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?

marcoperaza 6y ago
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.
kerkeslager 6y ago
Well, consider the language being used: > 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?
- cyberdrunk 6y ago
  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.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    > However, firing even one shot at the police who's trying to arrest you justifies use of whatever force necessary to subdue the attacker. 5 children were killed by police. 61 homes were burned--the vast majority of these homes were neighbors who had nothing to do with MOVE. Were either of these things "necessary to subdue the attacker"?
    - cyberdrunk 6y ago
      > 5 children were killed by police. Is it wise to have children in the same building from which you intend to shoot at the police? It's kind of obvious that the may accidentally get hurt.
      - jacobush 6y ago
        Is it wise to have such parents? No, I shouldn't think so. Kill them all.
      - kerkeslager 6y ago
        1. You ignored more than half the post you're responding to, and sidestepping the question. Can I assume that you think police killing 5 children and burning 61 houses was justified? A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice. 2. It's clear you're more interested in blaming anyone other than the cops than you are in preventing children from dying or houses from being burned. That's a serious ethical problem you have there. 3. If we're going to play the blame game, then surely MOVE and the police are both to blame.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - kerkeslager 6y ago
        > 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.

marcoperaza 6y ago

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.

kerkeslager 6y ago

Well, consider the language being used: > 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?

cyberdrunk 6y ago
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.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  > However, firing even one shot at the police who's trying to arrest you justifies use of whatever force necessary to subdue the attacker. 5 children were killed by police. 61 homes were burned--the vast majority of these homes were neighbors who had nothing to do with MOVE. Were either of these things "necessary to subdue the attacker"?
  - cyberdrunk 6y ago
    > 5 children were killed by police. Is it wise to have children in the same building from which you intend to shoot at the police? It's kind of obvious that the may accidentally get hurt.
    - jacobush 6y ago
      Is it wise to have such parents? No, I shouldn't think so. Kill them all.
    - kerkeslager 6y ago
      1. You ignored more than half the post you're responding to, and sidestepping the question. Can I assume that you think police killing 5 children and burning 61 houses was justified? A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice. 2. It's clear you're more interested in blaming anyone other than the cops than you are in preventing children from dying or houses from being burned. That's a serious ethical problem you have there. 3. If we're going to play the blame game, then surely MOVE and the police are both to blame.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - kerkeslager 6y ago
      > 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.