zlacker

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+(OP)
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.

>>cyberd+(OP)
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+6c
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.

>>cyberd+Qc
> 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"?