> 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?

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"?

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.

Wow, this sounds horrible.can you elaborate on what you mean by "allowed" it to burn down?

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".

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.

> no one from the city government has been criminally charged for the attack

Much changes over 15 years.

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.