zlacker

>>fortra+(OP)
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.

>>d2v+LD
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?

>>cyberd+Cm1
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?

>>kerkes+Iy1
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.