|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 27, @04:49PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
The story plainly states that MOVE is NOT suspected of the shooting. Here's the text from the story:
Investigators gave no motive for the slaying, but Philadelphia police Capt. Bill Fisher, who knows the MOVE leaders well, said he does not believe the killing was connected to the dispute over the 6-year-old.
"I knew there was a lot of rhetoric and everything else, but keep it in perspective, it's a child custody thing," Fisher said.
Even though MOVE is a group worthy of being reviled (even destroyed), we would be wise to keep our facts straight here. This is something that can get this site drawn into a nasty libel suit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 27, @04:55PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Another plainly telling line was this one:
Bernardi said authorities had no suspects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Marc Angelucci on Friday September 27, @05:23PM EST (#6)
(User #61 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see anything about MOVE being a "female supremacist" organization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 27, @04:55PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know if there's more than one "MOVE" organization?
The one I found via search engine is this one:
http://www.moveorg.net/
but this is a Black,anti-government/establishment moment, and not a radical women's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 27, @05:03PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
That is the correct URL. Here is news about them, complete with a link to moveorg.net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 27, @05:03PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh right, the father just "happened" to get murdered the day he was supposed to see his child after a long custody dispute, and MOVE and his wife are not arrested or considered suspects...yet they boarded up their house in preparation for some type of conflict with the police.
...can you imagine what the courts and police would be doing if the sexes were reversed here?
feminism is sexism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The police say they just view this as a custody dispute and that MOVE was not involved in the murder of the man? What are they just plain stupid? What if this were a man threatening to kill the x-wife? Would they just shrug that off? Of course not. The man would be arrested and tried for murder. Yet the woman gets off….as usual.
Yet MOVE has the following history:
In 1978, a Philadelphia police officer was shot to death in a confrontation at MOVE's headquarters. Another clash in 1985 left 11 people dead and 61 homes burned after Philadelphia police dropped a bomb from a helicopter on the group's fortified rowhouse.
MOVE kills a cop and wonders why the police attack them. Of course after the police bombed them and left 11 people dead they wouldn't want to admit this group killed an insignificant father who would have the gall to see his child.
Ya think the police have an agenda? How dare one suppose that the police might be used to enforce a visitation order. Why that would be beneath the officers to ensure that a man actually gets to enjoy the enforcement of a visitation right. Better to make the man go broke in court or just let the man be murdered.
HOW DARE THAT EVIL MAN SEEK VISITATION!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe there is any evidence to say that MOVE are female supremacists. They seem more like survivalist communists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have updated the title of the story in light of some reasonable points made on this comment board. Thanks as always for all your input.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think even "terrorrist group" is dangerously conclusive here. We really don't know that for sure. They are a black leftist group that has a history of police confrontations because they fight what they consider to be deep-seated racism and brutality in the police department. I believe former newspaper columnist Mumia Abu-Jamal was a member and there's a large population including Amnesty International who feel he received an unjust trial for the killing of a police officer and in fact that he may have been framed as a political prisoner. http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/reports/mumia/
They may be a terrorist group, or they may not. Stating it conclusively in the title here goes a bit far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the Associated Press:
MOVE has had a turbulent history with the city. Neighbors had complained for years that members of MOVE — a cult whose members adopted the surname Africa, ate raw food, espoused equality with animals and preached against technology — shouted from bullhorns late into the night, were confrontational and unsanitary, and jogged on people's roofs.
When police tried to serve warrants on May 14, 1985, MOVE members opened fire. In response, a police helicopter dropped explosives on a bunker atop the MOVE house, igniting a fire that destroyed 39 houses on one street and 22 on an adjacent street. Five children and six adults in the MOVE house died.
Another conflict took place at a fortified house in a different West Philadelphia neighborhood in 1978. A police officer was killed when police tried to evict the group and nine MOVE members were convicted of murder.
I don't know what to call them, but as a group, they don't sound very nice. Also, as a group, they tried to keep a child from court-ordered contact with his father. That deserves maximum condemnation in and of itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed - by this description and others, they certainly don't sound nice. But I think there's a difference between this and a "terrorist" group that routinely practics the killing/harming of innocent people. That's not to say they don't do that, maybe they do, but the description (especially in the first article) doesn't really tell us that. MOre importantly, there is no indication yet that their actions here with this child are gender based. It may be that this guy IS abusing the child and they are particularly aware of it because they're close to the family. Or perhaps they're doing this more because she's one of their members. Justified or not, neither of these reasons is about gender per se. And if it's not about gender and it's isolated to this specific incident then I think it's a little reactionary to attack the group from a men's rights position.
On the other hand I do think Warble makes a good point about the police here. Their job is to uphold the law regardless of what the group says is happening, and so they appear unconcerned here about the importance of visitation rights *in general*.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I think, Mac, is that first, MOVE is a black version of the anti-geovernment seperatist groups that people routinely charaterize as rednecks, klansman, race-supremacist, and a whoile lot of other canards.
And like many of those groups, MOVE belongs in the "real whacko" column on which it is probably correct. They are racists and loons. I've been to the site. Mad as a bunch of March Hares, the whole lot of them.
Guy in a custody dispute with them mysteriously shot? Hmmmm. I repeat, Hmmmm. Coincidence? Of course. How convenient.
Terrorists? Well, I will tell you what, if anyone gets sued by move for libel because they called them terrorists, and I sit on the jury, Truth is the ultimate defense as the saying goes.
What I want to ask you is this - had this been a MOVE father keeping his child away from a non-MOVE mother, how much you want to bet that there would be another Waco in the brewing?
No, MOVE isn't aa sexist based organization. What goes on about this by "da gubbmint" is, though.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see the group the way you do, but yes there's a racial bias involved in how the public treats a group like this compared to certain other groups.
"What I want to ask you is this - had this been a MOVE father keeping his child away from a non-MOVE mother, how much you want to bet that there would be another Waco in the brewing?"
If I'm reading you right, I agree there would likely be one. But that isn't an attack on MOVE, it's an attack on the police and societal bias for not caring when a man is blocked from his visitation rights. It is possible that MOVE had good reason to do this in this case, just as it's possible a group could arguably have good reason to block a mother from visitation if they know for sure she's abusing the child. But whether MOVE is right or wrong in doing this is not relevant to fact that the police are supposed to uphold the law and they are less likely to do so when it's a man who's being blocked from visitation. As you say, if the genders were reversed, they'd probably create a Waco. So it looks like the police went soft on this because of gender bias and perhaps even fear of clashing with MOVE over something they don't care much about - enforcing men's visitation. That I don't dispute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc wrote:
MOre importantly, there is no indication yet that their actions here with this child are gender based.
A little browsing at http://www.phillyimc.org/ shows plenty of gender-based justifications of their actions and they are more than willing to play the sexism card:
"The MOVE organization is an intentional community that raises their children communally and according to the religious teachings of their founder, John Africa."
"Robbins says this is a religious issue for MOVE as well as a political one, that their beliefs say a child stay with its mother. "These judges are deliberately acting illegally. This is religious persecution of the organization, trying to separate a mother from a child."
"This is an issue that isn’t just happening to my sister Alberta," says Mario Africa at a press conference/rally around this issue. "It’s happening to women on every street in America, women being told to give up their children to abusive husbands or ex-husbands. This isn’t just about MOVE."
From a reply to a columnist:
"You might as well admit this because everybody sees it, you've not coming off like you're honest, truthful, sincere; you're coming off real ugly and hateful because that's exactly what you are, and you particularly hate women and children. You have no regard for Alberta and her son's right to live in safety and security, away from the abuse of John Gilbride. You just as obviously have shown you have pro-man sentiments, but that does not give you the right to disregard the rights of women and children, or to bash women and children the way you're doing Albert Africa and her son. You're looking like a real fool, too, because right now as you're carrying the torch in favor of John Gilbride's rights as a so-call father, at the expense of this young child, John Gilbride is in Las Vegas gambling and partying. Isn't that a shame, it's like a slap in your face, Frank, ain't it! That's the feeling everybody involved in this ultimately gets, or will get in the long run, if you keep trusting this man. If he didn't have it in him to be loyal to his own wife and son, his own mother and father, than MOVE knows there's nothing you can expect from him."
MOVE has the smell of a cult to me and Gilbride was a former member. In other statements they call him an enemy and a traitor.
MOVE was willing to allow supervised access for Gilbride but they began fortifying for a siege at the prospect of unsupervised access. He may or may not be the abusive, unstable person they paint him as, but they undoubtedly had a very real fear that with unsupervised access he could get the kid away from them and de-program him.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"A little browsing at http://www.phillyimc.org/ shows plenty of gender-based justifications of their actions and they are more than willing to play the sexism card"
Thanks for doing the browsing and find that. I see the group totally different now, as far as gender. This was not in the original posting, or at least I didn't see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I talked about this in another post, but let me just say that I think MOVE is indeed a cult, and that the notion of deprogramming him is EXACTLY what they feared. However, I don't think that their pro-mother stance is the core of the issue, just the defense that they threw up as a means to "defend" their position. They are anarchists, dangerous anarchists, and those in the city and state have been placating them in order to avoid an ugly scene like they had in 1985.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday September 30, @11:43PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
...So in other words, the "inmates" are running the "assylum".
Figures.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey! It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. But the thing is, they live in the gray areas where the law is unclear about individual rights versus criminal behavior. They don't cause enough trouble to get themselves imprisoned, yet they are clearly undesirable neighbors.
This time, if the cops have the balls to investigate, then some of them may find themselves in prison, which, to them, might not be all that bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps Philadelphia police fear another bloody confrontation and that has influenced them to draw some of the conclusions they are reported to have made.
Locally, where I live, I will never forget the T.V. images of the police getting into their patrol cars and leaving a confrontational scene at an intersection (Florence and Normandie)during some of our local riots a few years back. A truck driver victim was drug from his big rig in this intersection and was beaten unconscious with a brick as the cowardly police were still fleeing to safety. The only thing they protect and serve are their own selves and their big fat salaries.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" Perhaps Philadelphia police fear another bloody confrontation and that has influenced them to draw some of the conclusions they are reported to have made. "
I would not be at all surprised if you're right, Ray. I remember the 1985 incident, and what a disaster it was for the city of Philadelphia. I beleive it was publicized internationally as an example of police brutality in America, and the mayor of the city (I'm blanking on his name - Wilson Good?), who was being spoken of as a possible contender for national office, was more or less forced from politics.
Frankly, I felt at the time and feel now that if you shoot at people (the police or anyone else) you really are not in a position to complain if they shoot back. Maybe that's cold, maybe I wouldn't say that if it were my kids that got killed, or my neighborhood that burned down, but thta's my bottom line reaction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MOVE is a cult of anarchy that looks for every opportunity for a confrontation. Their behavior in the neighborhood that Wilson Goode bombed in 1985, in my opinion, merited just such an attack. Firemen tried to put the fires out but were driven back by gunfire, so they let the block burn. Not the right choice, perhaps, but perhaps precisely the one the MOVE members desired. As I recall, Ramona Africa's son died in the fire because several members stayed holed-up on the burning building and were incinerated themselves.
I suspect that the police departments of both Philadelphia and Maple Shade New Jersey are doing what they can to avoid an ugly confrontation that can lead to nothing but gunfire or worse.
The thing is, this story concerns US because of the nature of the story: courts give father visitation; father gets murdered; mother not available for questioning. But in this case, it's not just a mother denying the rights of the father, it's an entire cult, and the motivations are not so much denying MEN's rights, but denying the notion that the law has any authority over them. Someone said elsewhere in this thread that the whole organization ought to be abolished. Perhaps so. But I think in this case the story is MUCH bigger than just one mother ignoring the courts. It's an anarchist cult that includes men and women.
I'm convinced that the cops are investigating MOVE. But I think they will continue to refuse to acknowledge it until they: a) have an airtight case; or b) they can take the suspect into custody without a violent uprising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O.k. Sherlock this is really tough, but as I read the excerpts from this story below, my mind tells me to connect the dots, and ask, "Where's the motive?" You be the judge.
"John Gilbride was killed the same day he was scheduled to have his first unsupervised visit with his son.
He was shot repeatedly in the head and chest with an automatic weapon while on his way home from his job as a ramp worker at the Philadelphia airport, said Burlington County Prosecutor Robert Bernardi.
Gilbride had been fighting with his former wife, Alberta Africa, a MOVE member, over visitation with their son. The boy lives with his mother in Cherry Hill, a few miles from Maple Shade.
MOVE vowed to fight the order, saying it would not turn the boy over to Gilbride, and last week the radical group boarded up the windows at its Philadelphia headquarters, fearing a showdown with authorities.
In 1978, a Philadelphia police officer was shot to death in a confrontation at MOVE's headquarters. Another clash in 1985 left 11 people dead and 61 homes burned after Philadelphia police dropped a bomb from a helicopter on the group's fortified rowhouse.
Bernardi said authorities had no suspects."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday September 28, @09:50AM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
O.k. Sherlock this is really tough, but as I read the excerpts from this story below, my mind tells me to connect the dots, and ask, "Where's the motive?" You be the judge.
No need to be snide. You, I, and the author of the story know as well as anyone that the mother had motive. That the police don't see it is another (ridiculous) matter. The story plainly states that there are no suspects, so it is not factual in the headline of this story on this site to claim that the woman or the group IS a suspect. People believe they are safe from libel law when they print anything on the Internet. It is not true. When you run this kind of story, stating something as fact that is not, you are at just as much at risk as any television or newspaper. Having the facts is and getting them right is always a good idea. Otherwise one is better served saying nothing at all.
As Gonzo said, truth is the best defense against libel, and I agree with him that were I sitting on the jury I would probably agree that this group isn't being libeled here by being labeled a "terrorist" organization, considering their history and tactics.
Still: can Scott afford that kind of lawsuit, should it happen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I apologize if my snideness offended you personally. My snide sarcasm was totally directed at law enforcement's ineffectiveness (see "police cowardice?" above), thus the "Watson/Sherlock" reference.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 29, @02:28AM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know, 'Anon', you may be right about that. However, alot of what is said here is personal opinion. That would be covered by "free speech", wouldn't it? Maybe not, again I'm not sure.
Then again, I just remembered we're MEN.
...We don't HAVE free speech...,
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 29, @09:33AM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know, 'Anon', you may be right about that. However, alot of what is said here is personal opinion. That would be covered by "free speech", wouldn't it? Maybe not, again I'm not sure.
No. Libel is not considered "free speech." If what you state as fact is false and said maliciously, it is libel and punishable by the courts, even in the U.S. As it should be. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hurt others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 29, @08:08PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
I understand what you are saying.
Thanks.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
