570
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 13 Nov 2023
570 points (94.3% liked)
politics
18586 readers
4335 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It could be just breaking in and it's a coincidence, could be that they thought they were in the car or were trying to threaten Biden's family. The fact that they got away from the secret service, who don't fuck around, is wild too.
Edit: I took out the part about d's being targeted in the article. I read the description.
smaller detail has to stay on task--protecting their charge, not chasing down suspects that are no longer an immediate threat. others will do the hunting.
The immediate goal is to protect. They aren't going to chase them down. MPD is going to find these guys almost certainly.
where in the article does it say that democrats are being targeted? In addition, I feel user Ragdoll is correct that the title makes it seem worse that the situation actually was (though I guess there isn't an easier way to write the title), the SUV was not occupied when the criminals tried to break in. If you're targeting someone, you probably at least have an idea of who should be inside and whether they just stepped out of the vehicle or stepped in. I doubt the vehicle literally said Biden or "Biden's family inside" so I doubt it was a group of people walking around, and taking the opportunity to attack Biden or his family. In addition, the article indicates that car jacking have increased 40% in the area, so it really seems like it was a random car jacking.
I kind of think the bigger story is, why were Secret Service shooting at suspects trying to enter an empty vehicle? Unless there were firearms in the vehicle, feels a bit excessive to potentially kill 1 to 4 people over a car break in where no one's life was in direct danger.
Maybe there's more missing details that clear up the story so we'd have to wait and see.
These were both in the article description:
Also, these:
I could collect more, but you get the idea.
Someone can correct me if I am wrong, isn't law enforcement taught to shoot first and then maybe ask questions later?
No no no, you're thinking of the Army. The police are trained to shoot first, cover up the shooting, find/make up past crime the victim did to justify the shooting, get acquitted by a grand jury, and receive a full pension later.
No. There's, generally speaking, rules if engagement.
Why did they shoot at someone trying to enter an empty vehicle?
Maybe from a security perspective the position is that they assume anyone trying to get into a vehicle they are protecting is intending to harm the occupants, even if the occupants are not in the vehicle and the perps don’t know that.
No but thats still, you're not protecting anyone you're just shooting
I don’t disagree. However, I’m not the SS.
They were probably pointing their guns at them and one of them turned around to face them way too quickly.