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?

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.

> 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"?

> 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.

Is it wise to have such parents? No, I shouldn't think so. Kill them all.

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.