233
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
233 points (97.2% liked)
Asklemmy
44149 readers
1376 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
You said above “the fire department showed up and let it continue to burn” This is a completely inaccurate statement. The fire department was there from the beginning and were ordered to move back because of the gunfire. Your statement is saying that the fire department showed up at sometime during the event and just waited around and let it continue to burn, which is absolutely untrue .
It’s not inaccurate. That’s what happened because the police decided to corner MOVE members in their home and then fired at them as they tried to move outside. The goal from the start was to kill everyone there and in their rage, they devised easily one of the stupidest plans ever. The police forced people into a corner and they retaliated. The police also got hit with a lawsuit in federal court for use of excessive force and illegal search and seizure.
We can split hairs on phrasing, but the police are to blame for the entire thing and crafted a scenario where the fire department’s hands were tied.
[citation needed]
It was well known that the police disliked MOVE as a collective. That’s why they got slapped with a lawsuit by a federal judge for excessive force, illegal search and illegal seizure. They killed women and children with their plan because of their carelessness, and fired upon anyone that ran from the building they set on fire with their bombs.
Your “citation” is cops and their interactions with black folk on the daily. I’m not gonna play this game where the opposition picks apart the irrelevant parts of a stance to try to weaken it.
Edit: here's your citation
So, it wasn't intentional.
So, cruelty, indifference, but not an actual desire to murder all of them?
I can't read that because it requires a subscription, but I very much doubt it says "the police plan was to kill everyone, and here's the evidence for that".
If that wasn't the intended plan with what they carried out, it was definitely a benefit based on the fact that police were already at odds with MOVE. So sure, no one sat at a table in a backroom and said "we're going to kill them all" while cackling, but it was definitely not something they were opposed to based on their actions (which involved so much overreach and violation of rights that even the city and a federal judge couldn't put a lid on it).
The article talks about how all of the deaths involved in the MOVE shootout were eventually re-categorized as homicides instead of their initial categorization of "accidental".
It's really not a stretch to think that the police didn't want all of MOVE completely eliminated. They were unwilling to work with MOVE and MOVE was unwilling to bend to an organization that constantly violated the civil rights of the black community.
Homicides? Do you mean first degree murder? Because to clear the bar you're attempting to clear you need to prove that "The goal from the start was to kill everyone there".
I’m not going to keep arguing with a bad faith bootlicker.
In other words, "I can't defend my words, so I'll ad-hominem the person who challenged them."
I already did and it became obvious you were arguing in bad faith when you made an assumption about what a source said, despite not being able to actually even read it. You focused on the easiest thing to attack in the info I shared.
No you didn't, you never came up with any evidence to prove your point. You came up with evidence they were malicious, cruel, etc. Not that there was a plan in place to kill them all and they executed that plan. That was your original claim, and nothing you've said backs it up.
Explain to me what you think the goal of dropping 2 military-grade explosives on the house was. I'm honestly confused as to why you're so hung up on commentary that is essentially irrelevant amongst everything I shared.
What's a "military-grade" explosive? Why focus on that, rather than the explosive power? If the "The goal from the start was to kill everyone there" as you stated, it's not the "grade" of the explosives that would matter, it was the quantity. They would have used thousands of pounds, to ensure that nobody survived the explosion. As far as I know the goal of dropping the 750g bombs was to destroy a "bunker" type structure, or to create an opening in the building the police could use to drop in tear gas or to enter themselves.
Because you made an absolutely extraordinary claim, and have been unable to back it up. You could have just backed down and admitted it was an exaggeration, but no, you've pretended it's still true, so I'm pushing you to either admit that you exaggerated or to provide evidence to prove your ridiculous claim.
He didn’t say that. It was a different person. Read the usernames.