Finding #1: Excessive Force
The Quote
“The use of the bomb, combined with the firing of at least 10,000 rounds of ammunition at the house and the decision to let the fire burn, constituted an unjustified and willful use of excessive force.”
Source: Commission Report, Conclusions section
What the Commission Found
The Bomb:
- Improvised explosive device containing C-4 plastic explosive and Tovex water gel
- Designed to “blow the bunker off the roof”
- Never properly tested for effects
- Dropped on occupied house with children inside
- Ignited fuel stored on roof, starting fire
The Ammunition:
- Over 10,000 rounds fired at the house
- Hours-long barrage before bomb drop
- Far exceeded any reasonable suppressive fire
- House was residential row house, not military bunker
- Children known to be inside throughout
The Fire:
- Started immediately after bomb drop
- Officials ordered firefighters to “let it burn”
- Approximately 45 minutes passed before firefighting began
- During that time, fire spread from one house to entire block
- Decision made deliberately, not by accident
Commission’s Analysis: Each element alone was excessive. Combined, they constituted “willful” excessive force—meaning deliberate, not accidental.
Why This Matters
“Excessive force” is a Fourth Amendment violation. It’s what police can be criminally charged with. The Commission explicitly found that force used was:
- Unjustified – not warranted by circumstances
- Willful – deliberate, not accidental
- Excessive – far beyond what situation required
That’s the legal framework for criminal charges. The grand jury had this finding. They chose not to indict anyway.
Finding #2: Gross Negligence
The Quote
“The dropping of the bomb, the failure to control the fire, and the shooting of over 10,000 rounds of ammunition were decisions made by responsible city officials that constituted gross negligence.”
Source: Commission Report, Findings section
Who Was Named
The Commission specifically identified these officials as “grossly negligent”:
Mayor W. Wilson Goode:
- Approved plan without adequate review
- Failed to ensure proper planning
- Did not question use of explosive device
- Knew children were present but proceeded anyway
Police Commissioner Gregore J. Sambor:
- Directed operation recklessly
- Failed to ensure adequate planning
- Prioritized “winning” over civilian safety
- Made public statements about “finishing this” that suggested vendetta
Fire Commissioner William C. Richmond:
- Agreed to “let it burn” decision
- Failed to adequately consider fire spread risk
- Did not protect neighboring properties
- Abdicated responsibility to protect civilians
Managing Director Leo A. Brooks:
- Coordinated agencies inadequately
- Failed in oversight responsibilities
- Did not ensure proper planning
- Allowed reckless operation to proceed
What “Gross Negligence” Means Legally
Ordinary negligence: Failure to exercise reasonable care
Gross negligence: Reckless disregard for safety; conscious indifference to consequences
Gross negligence can support:
- Criminal charges (in many jurisdictions)
- Punitive damages in civil cases
- Professional sanctions and termination
- Loss of qualified immunity for officials
The Commission found gross negligence – the higher standard. That should have triggered criminal investigation.
Why This Matters
You can’t claim “we didn’t know” when a commission finds gross negligence. Gross negligence means you should have known, you had duty to know, and you recklessly ignored that duty.
Every official named remained free. Most kept their pensions. That’s not justice failing—that’s the system protecting its own.
Finding #3: Reckless Planning
The Quote
“The plan to bomb the MOVE house was reckless, ill-conceived, and hastily approved.”
Source: Commission Report, Analysis section
What the Commission Found
Reckless:
- Bomb never tested for effects
- Fire risk not adequately assessed
- No consideration of fire spreading to adjacent homes
- Children’s presence acknowledged but not factored into planning
- No backup plan if operation failed
Ill-Conceived:
- No clear objective beyond “remove MOVE”
- Success criteria undefined
- Evacuation planning inadequate
- Inter-agency coordination poor
- Command structure unclear
Hastily Approved:
- Mayor approved plan without detailed review
- No written operational plan
- Fire department inadequately consulted
- Emergency management not properly involved
- Political pressure (election year) influenced timing
Specific Planning Failures
1. The Bomb:
- Detective Frank Powell constructed explosive based on verbal instructions
- Device never tested
- No analysis of potential fire ignition
- No consideration of fuel stored on roof
- No assessment of structural effects on adjacent houses
2. Firefighting:
- Fire Commissioner not given full operational details
- Equipment staged but strategy unclear
- No clear protocol for when to engage
- Decision to “let it burn” made in moment without proper consideration
3. Evacuation:
- Only immediate neighbors evacuated
- No contingency for fire spreading
- Residents not informed of bomb plan
- No safe haven established for wider evacuation if needed
4. Communication:
- No unified command post
- Multiple agencies operating independently
- Conflicting orders given
- Decision-making authority unclear
Why This Matters
This wasn’t a well-planned operation that went wrong. This was a reckless operation that went exactly as badly as anyone paying attention would have predicted.
When you don’t plan properly, don’t test your methods, don’t coordinate agencies, and don’t have contingencies—you’re not making mistakes. You’re being reckless.
Recklessness causing death is typically criminal. But not if you’re a city official, apparently.