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
Imagine just trying to break into a car and you fucking pick the presidents daughter.
Bad fucking luck there.
I’m glad that’s “all” it was - a routine car break-in or stolen vehicle. My first thought was that some fucking domestic terrorists/Trump cultists knew exactly what they were doing. Glad it wasn’t that.
The fact that the car was unoccupied was their saving grace here. One of the agents fired a shot and “missed” which was almost certainly a warning shot. Had someone been in that car, the attempted thieves would almost certainly be dead.
Warning shots aren't really a thing in modern law enforcement. Policy is generally if you need to shoot at someone you're supposed to be trying to neutralize a threat with your bullet and not just attempting to scare someone with it.
True, but this is the Secret Service we’re talking about, not local cops. They are trained to protect high level US government assets. If they were shooting to kill there would have been far more rounds fired, more than one agent would have been firing, and there would be more bodies
Yes ,which is how we knew that whoever fired fucked up. They don't do warning shots.
Unless its “we need to exit the area now, firing a shot into the pavement may scare off the offenders and let us get into our vehicle immediately” or “we fire a bunch of rounds at three people surrounding our exit vehicle who may be armed, potentially damaging the vehicle and causing them to shoot back.” The secret service’s number 1 job is to protect their assigned assets. In this situation, thinking tactically, they may have determined that trying to deter would be car thieves with minimal confrontation so they could evacuate those involved to somewhere secure was most important. If they wanted to shoot to kill, the thieves never would have made it to their getaway vehicle, but the possibility of getting in a street-level shootout is far more dangerous when it comes to their job rather than scaring guys off and driving away.
I can't even deal with the level of absolute ignorance you are displaying. Anyone who is firing guns "into the pavement" needs to be disarmed immediately as they are a CLEAR threat to literally everyone around them. This is not the expected behavior of a maximally trained Federal Law Enforcement Officer.
Here's another Pro-Tip...you don't fire warning shots horizonally or into the sky either as those bullets are going SOMEWHERE and you have no idea where. It's completely possible that your "warning shot" ends up wounding or killing someone 2 blocks away. This is why no one with any serious firearms training does it and why no serious trainers recommend it.
I've done training and scenario shooting with everyone from NRA instructors to Law Enforcement to SPECOPS guys. NO ONE with real training does warning shots.
You are trying to create some wildly improbable hypothetical scenario in order to justify reckless and unsafe actions by Federal Law Enforcement. Stop it.
And yet every animal on the planet instinctively demos its weapons when threatened.
Regardless of what the law says about warnings, it is an effective technique as evidence by the behavior’s survival and ubiquity in the context of the ruthless optimization of evolution.
Demonstrating destructive capability is an effective means of protection, and I would expect Secret Service to be more focused on the rules of reality than the guidelines of law, given the weight of their assignment.
Like, indiscriminate ordinance is also illegal, but it gets used all the time in a state of war because that’s a context where law takes a back seat to survival.
"Thinking tactically"... You're literally some anonymous person on the internet. I guarantee you know dick all about how the secret service operate in these circumstances.
As for the "shoot to kill" comment, the secret service hasn't killed anyone in quite a while, yet they have shot a few. The evidence doesn't corroborate your stance.
So how do you explain the Secret Service shooting people without killing them?
Is it:
(a) They lack the firing skill to hit center mass
or
(b) Their methods do not correspond perfectly with the legal guidelines given in a concealed carry course?
Because even when hitting centre mass, a bullet isn't a guaranteed way to kill someone. Look at combat during the recent Iraq war, way more people got injured than killed due to bullets. Do you think they were aiming to just wound the people shooting at them?
So, in answer to your question that appears to be designed to embarass me, neither.
Fun fact, the vehicles are bulletproof and can take direct RPG hits. My sister's ex husband works on them for a living.
50 Cent has (had? Idk with his bankruptcy) an SUV with flamethrowers on the sides and rear
I'd sooner believe a miss in a situation like this then I would believe that secret service is flinging wild shots into the air in order to make sure they're as kind as possible to someone trying to break into the car of someone they're protecting.
Which is obvious because scaring someone that you’re going to murder them just means they will fight back
Secret Service, as the name implies, is not a normal law enforcement organization.
I didn’t say it’s a good idea, just that a single shot fired from a team of three secret service agents was probably intentional. Most likely they fired at the pavement or something, so the sound of the shot would scare off the offenders. Their job is to protect their assets at all costs when on guard duty, not begin placing arrests or detaining suspects (unless that will help their goal in said situation). In this situation, preventing that vehicle from being stolen was important in case they needed to exit the area quickly. All the suspects fled in a red vehicle where the description was passed to capitol police.
Yup. Me too. It would be on brand.
Well, if it was that and Joe Biden's daughter was in the vehicle, then you might hear random demands being made on her life to either surrender the country to Russia or to the Taliban so it can be changed to either the Russian States of American or the Taliban States of American, which would really have us feeling a mass armed uprising or another civil war is coming.
That was my assumption too. Do we have indication one way or the other, that it was targeted or random?
Do they ever do?
Imagine being an idiot in DC and not knowing how government cars/ protected cars look like.
Yeah if you see a black SUV with tinted windows in DC it should be pretty self explanatory not to fuck with it
I am pretty sure if I steal the tires off the president's limo he will be so impressed with me I get to be his new sidekick.
R.I.P. JT.
Too soon?
Tiktok has emboldened a new generation of idiots.
You've got to pretty unobservant in reality. Like hey this car has a police radio and extra antennas. I should definitely keep going, this won't go bad at all.
Do they have any obvious identifying marks anymore? My understanding was that they are intentionally pretty non-descript vehicles, not drawing attention
They don't have a giant label but it's not hard to tell either.
Yes, they have very distinct license plates which say "US GOVERNMENT VEHICLE" on them.
And this isn't some diplomatic plate or shit. Any car with the actual fedgov plates is moving VIPs or on their way to do so.
I've spent enough time in arcades to know that's just the plot to a kickass beat-em-up side scroller.
*granddaughter. Bad luck either way.