The title looks like it's trying to imply that the thiefs specifically targeted her, when the article makes it more clear that they likely just tried to steal the car not knowing it was from the Secret Service.
Gotta add that clickbait for the views 🙄
Sad thing is, it probably would have generated as many hits if the headline was more open. I mean that’s freaking hilarious in a morbid way - that the would be thieves just happened to pick the wrong car to try and steal.
The new and improved bait car with active defenses!
How would you have written it?
Not OP
Secret Service agents protecting Biden’s granddaughter open fire when 3 people pick the wrong SUV to streal.
Secret Service Fires Shots at Car Thieves
But we don't do non sensationalist headlines anymore.
That implies that there was a right SUV to steal.
You just made me realize that the original headline doesn't specify that the SUV is where the granddaughter is. You also make that mistake.
I think we can do better. Let's see:
Secret Service open fire at thieves who unknowingly attempted to break into SUV carrying Biden's granddaughter.
And I still think we can do better, but right now I'm le tired.
The vehicle was empty, it wasn't carrying anyone.
Ah, serves me right for not reading TFA.
In that case I would have simply written what @Maggoty@lemmy.world wrote in this very thread.
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
True, but this is the Secret Service we’re talking about, not local cops.
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.
...firing a shot into the pavement...
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.
potentially damaging the vehicle and causing them to shoot back
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.
That was my assumption too. Do we have indication one way or the other, that it was targeted or random?
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.
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
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.
They don't have a giant label but it's not hard to tell either.
I've spent enough time in arcades to know that's just the plot to a kickass beat-em-up side scroller.
Secret Service agents protecting President Joe Biden’s granddaughter opened fire after three people tried to break into an unmarked Secret Service vehicle in the nation’s capital, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.
Awesome that they were trying to break into a car, and it turned out to be an unmarked Secret Service vehicle.
That is some seriously bad situational awareness combined with some terribly bad luck for those thieves.
One of the agents opened fire, but no one was struck by the gunfire, the Secret Service said in a statement. The three people were seen fleeing in a red car
Then there is the fortune that they were allowed to flee the scene.... unharmed....
Would they be dare to open another chest, knowing it may become a mimic really fast?
If they're anything like my Pathfinder group, yes. They might even be more likely to try cuz you get loot and XP.
Just use mage hand and ready actions. Mimics are easy to deal with.
I plan to run a campaign one day with mimics that look like dead bodies. That will mess the players up.
Not gonna lie, you had me in the first half.
Are we not acknowledging that an agent opened fire on people for breaking into a vehicle? There's no danger to anyone's life yet a Secret Service agent just opens fire in public where, based on the article, there were likely hundreds of other citizens around shopping.
By itself, you are absolutely correct. It's a property crime and nothing more. When local cops shoot these people, you are right to be upset.
But the secret service (etc) deals in situations where these things may not be isolated. It's easy to imagine a scenario where step 1 is to isolate/strand the target, while step 2 is much more sinister. Part of their standard operations is going to be ensuring they always have an exit strategy, should the need arise.
Beyond that, there is also the very real danger of terrorism. In this case, it seems that the would-be thieves had no idea who they were targeting. But there are plenty of people who could've been following them, waiting for an opportunity.
Also, you're making a very bold assumption about how many potential bystanders there were. I don't know the area where it happened, but very little of my shopping has more than a handful of people at a time anywhere near my vehicle.
Bullets, even from small handguns, travel a very long distance very fast until they hit something. This is exceptionally negligent. It doesn't matter how many bystanders there were. The most common round used in handguns is a 9mm, and it travels at upwards of 1300 feet per second and can travel for miles. No one's life was in immediate danger, there was no reason to discharge a firearm in public. I've owned guns all my life and it's negligent things like this that make responsible owners and competent police look bad.
Also missed. That’s somewhat worrying
Secret Services have the accuracy of a stormtrooper
Breaking into a vehicle being guarded by the Secret Service is absolutely a threat to would-be occupants.
Bombs, tracking devices, exotic methods, even just searching the car is all a tangible threat to the occupant
But their charge was WITH them. There was no immediate danger. If you're worried about the vehicle being tampered with, you call in another one. You don't open fire in the vicinity of a market on a Sunday. Unless something inside that vehicle is a matter of national security or someone was in it, there is zero justification for opening fire. I say this as a lifelong gun owner, this is exceptionally negligent. You do not discharge your weapon at someone, especially in public, unless there are lives in danger, especially in a populated area where you do not know who or what are further down range.
Note to self: Don't fuck with Naomi's car
As illegal and unlawful as it would be, I think it would have been infinitely funnier if they had succeeded in car jacking a Secret Service SUV.
Can you imagine seeing some tutorial get uploaded explaining how to bypass the key starter like a KIA lmao
Good. If you try to break into someone else's shit, you should reasonably expect to get shot at.
It is worrying to me that the supposedly highest trained security guards in the world couldn't actually hit their target. I would expect better in terms of both accuracy and fire discipline.
It is also worrying that if a citizen like you or me tried to defend ourselves and our property in the same way in much of these nation including DC, we would go to jail. I think we deserve the same rights as 'important people'.
Imagine living in a country where people are so obsessed with guns that everybody has guns and everyone is a potential threat or one insult away from doing a mass shooting. It's gotten so bad that America has become a parody of Grand Theft Auto, where you can actually feel safer as a character in a video game that glorifies violence and crime.
Your nation has gone beyond ape shit.
There isn't another developed nation in the world where gun violence is as big a problem as in America.
This ISN'T NORMAL.
Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates in the US are 33 times greater than in Australia and 77 times greater than in Germany. Gun violence accounts for over 8% of deaths in the US among those under age 20.
Gun violence accounts for over 8% of deaths in the US among those under age 20.
Break out the 'firearm deaths of under 20yos' stat by income, or average income of residential area where they live. You'll see a STRONG correlation. That's because an awful lot of our gun crime is by violent drug gangs in inner city areas.
That link has a great breakdown though of firearm homicide rate by state. I'll point out there's little or no correlation between gun control policy and firearm homicide rate there. Washington, DC and Maryland have some of the strictest gun control in the country, and the most firearm homicides. Vermont, New Hampshire, and Utah have among the least gun control and highest gun ownership rate, but among the lowest firearm homicide rate. Then there are states that have the expected effect- Hawaii (very anti-gun) with low gun death rate, Alaska (lots of guns) with high gun death rate.
But what that all says is that there's not a causation between gun ownership or gun policy and gun homicide rate. I suspect you'd find a better correlation with poverty than with gun ownership.
What about the other two more important statistics? Stop killing kids with your emotional support weapons you fucking cowards.
the 'key statistics' at the top--
I addressed the which state is which, I addressed the under-20s dying of gun homicide. If I didn't address them enough please feel free to ask for detail on whatever part of it you wish to focus on.
As for the other key point (US has more gun homicide than Germany or AU)- that one's more complicated.
There's an obvious answer that there's more guns in USA, thus more gun homicide- much the same as you get more drownings in Miami (where everyone's at the beach) than Kansas (where there's no water).
However I think focusing on homicide rate by weapon is of limited use. I think overall homicide rate is more important-- if in one place the homicide rate is 1/10million and most of them are stabbings and in another place the homicide rate is 1/10million and most of them are shootings, neither one is safer than the other.
I suspect USA has higher overall homicide rate than either of those two places. But I think the root causes for that are the 'hard problems' we ignore- poverty, drugs, gangs, hopelessness, etc. DE and AU have decent modern health care systems and actually take care of their population. Mental health care is available and affordable. Strong social safety net keeps people out of extreme poverty. Thus- less drug use, less gangs, and of course less violence from the gangs.
I'm sure there's some part of that difference that comes from side effects of our gun policies, so don't think I'm being obtuse. Just that I don't think it's anywhere near the direct causation you seem to be claiming.
It doesn't matter what you think when there's evidence of what works.
"We've tried nothing, and it hasn't worked!" Says only country where this happens regularly.
Are you from the US? I'm assuming not. I mean no offense by this.
What most people from other places don't recognize is that the US is in effect 50 different countries. Each state has their own regulations, that in some cases are wildly different from the next.
That applies to gun laws also.
So it's most incorrect to say 'we tried nothing and it didn't work', when in reality we've tried 50 different things. That is the beauty of your link, if you look at the state by state data. There's 50 different visions of what gun policy should be, and 50 different outcomes. And this really does run the gamut. There are a few national-level laws, for example every gun store purchase must have a background check, and some case law that has defined what the government can and can't do to regulate, but for the most part it's up to each state to write their own policy.
In DC for example, you had a scheme that would fit in well anywhere in Europe- you need training and licensing to even get a permit to buy a gun, each gun has to be registered and test-fired before it can be delivered to the buyer. From beginning to end the process of buying a gun (which you couldn't even carry) took months and a dozen visits to various government agencies. I've heard it's since gotten a bit less strict, but it was like that for a LONG time.
DC has the highest rate of gun violence in the nation and has for a very long time.
Hawaii has gun control that's similarly strict, and has among the lowest gun homicide rate in the nation.
In Vermont for example you have what everyone accuses the entire USA of having- anyone can buy as many guns as they want with no training or licensing, and you can carry your gun loaded without a permit or proof of training. This is sometimes called 'Constitutional Carry' (the Constitution is your carry permit). Buying a gun is easy, other than the Federally-mandated background check, you can walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun in less than an hour.
Vermont has among the highest gun ownership rate, but among the lowest gun homicide rate.
Alaska is similar to Vermont (Constitutional Carry, high gun ownership rate) but among the highest gun homicide rate.
What those 4 states should tell you, is that gun policy or gun ownership rate are not necessarily drivers of gun homicide rate. Something else is going on that drives gun homicide rate.
So's the E.U. they got it to work. The excuses Americans will make for allowing themselves to ignore the dead kid problem is astounding. And you're right, there is more that drives homicide rate, like lack of social services, 10% of your population living without food security on an annual basis, 54% of your adult population reading below a 6th grade literacy level, there's a lot of big problems and you aren't fixing any of them.
And you’re right, there is more that drives homicide rate, like lack of social services, 10% of your population living without food security on an annual basis, 54% of your adult population reading below a 6th grade literacy level, there’s a lot of big problems and you aren’t fixing any of them.
And on this I am in 100% agreement. It's fucking shameful that we don't take care of our own people. But our government spends money it doesn't have like there's no tomorrow; our military is bigger than the next 10 in the world combined (including all of our enemies) and we continue to fund it at absurd rates, we have billions of $ worth of domestic spying invading our privacy. And while we fight over whether we protect kids with more guns or less guns, we then throw them in schools where teachers are barely able to scrape by, send them into a cutthroat society where corporations fuck over the employees with no remorse, and where if you're not rich you probably can't afford much in the way of decent health care.
Quite frankly it's shameful. It's appalling. If it or any part of it was imposed upon us by force by another nation, we'd all go to war and support using nukes against them. But we do it to ourselves so we smile and nod and say 'oh he got cancer and went bankrupt and couldn't afford treatment and died' like that's the way things are supposed to be.
And then in our politics we fight over should we elect this loser or that psycho, should we have more guns or less guns, should we have more immigration or more border security, meanwhile upward mobility is down, quality of life is down, the wealth of the nation is being extracted by big companies, and we're too distracted by random shit to fix the underlying problems.
So if you think I'm one of the 'Murica, fuck yeah!' people, I'm not. I love my country and I'm proud to be American, but I'm not proud of what my nation has become lately.
So’s the E.U. they got it to work. The excuses Americans will make for allowing themselves to ignore the dead kid problem is astounding.
I would agree with this, but it's not about guns (especially since most of those kids are shot with illegal guns by people who can't legally own guns).
The problem is poverty. And we do fuck all about that.
No, it's "not about guns". We still have guns, I have friends who have guns, I've shot and hunted. It's about having the adequate systems in place for BEFORE people get the guns. And yes there are lots of guns already, but not putting in limitations won't make that number drop will it? Not trying voluntary buy-backs won't get unwanted guns out of normal citizens homes. Not having adequate food, wealth, and access to education isn't going to reduce the amount of crime that scared regular Americans into thinking they need emotional support weapons. Just do something, fucking anything. It's not that nothing works, it's that you refuse to try what works elsewhere because you've been fooled into thinking you're special individual snowflakes, but your ravenous individuality has eroded any capacity you have for co-operation with your fellow Americans in securing your right to live.
There's 500 million legal privately owned guns in the US. If you assume an average value of $450, that's $225 billion.
If I had $225 billion to spend, I sure as fuck wouldn't spend it buying back guns. I'd fund mental health care, I'd fund education, I'd fund jobs programs.
Not trying voluntary buy-backs
These DO happen in a lot of places, on a local or state level. Doesn't have much effect because the people who commit the crimes are the ones with illegal guns who aren't gonna sell them.
you refuse to try what works
We are stupid in that we refuse to try things like single payer health care.
But I suspect almost any gun policy you'd come up with has been tried somewhere in the USA.
What you're really missing is there are two kinds of gun owners in USA- law-abiding and criminal. The law-abiding ones aren't committing most of the gun crime. Look at the stats for defensive gun use (when a law-abiding person uses a legal gun to stop or prevent a crime)- they aren't tracked by government so the data has to come from statistical surveys, but even the anti-gun people agree that DGUs happen 5-6x more often than firearm homicide.
Most DGUs end with no shots fired- criminal sees gun and runs away.
It’s not that nothing works, it’s that you refuse to try what works elsewhere because you’ve been fooled into thinking you’re special individual snowflakes, but your ravenous individuality has eroded any capacity you have for co-operation with your fellow Americans in securing your right to live.
And with respect, this is a totally ignorant comment that's based on an anti-gun talking point and not any actual knowledge of American gun policy, gun ownership culture, stated reasons for owning guns, or anything other than conjecture and accusation.
You say 'try what works' (presumably referring to European-style gun control) but show no concept of understanding how truly difficult (damn near impossible) it would be to implement, even if a majority of the nation wanted it (which they don't). And you ignore the fact that much of what you call 'what works' HAS been tried, or is currently being tried.
I don't mean to insult you or personally attack you. But the fact is your accusations show little understanding of the REALITY of American gun ownership, why Americans buy and own guns, and what they do with them.
I'm happy to share what I know. But if your mind is concluded and closed, if you've just decided 'Americans are ammosexual hicks who refuse to give up their penis extenders to keep their own kids safe' and you are not open to even entertaining the possibility that reality is much more complex than that, then there's nothing I or anyone else can say.
If you want to understand, at least from one American's POV, like I said I'm happy to share. And IMHO it's fascinating- I wasn't always pro-gun, I wasn't raised around guns or gun culture, so what I know comes from my own independent research without most of the emotion you see in many gun arguments.
So my friend, can you try an open mind?
Imagine living in a country where people are so obsessed with guns that everybody has guns and everyone is a potential threat or one insult away from doing a mass shooting.
I don't know what nation you're from but America is nothing at all like this. Gun owners aren't like this.
People who don't understand American gun culture expect it's like GTA- everybody's strapped, fender-benders at traffic lights turn into firefights, don't dare tell anyone anything negative because they'll shoot you if they don't like what you say. This isn't at all the case though. Not even close.
Gun owners who carry guns look at it like a seat belt or fire extinguisher-- you hope to god you never need it, but if ever you do, having it might save your life. There is no action movie attitude of 'who do I shoot today?'. Gun owners recognize how serious a responsibility it is, and petty arguments rarely involve weapons fire, even in situations where everyone involved is armed.
We have a big problem with gun violence- but the majority of it is caused by our bigger problem of poverty and hopelessness in many areas. People turn to drugs, that are supplied by violent gangs who are all armed with illegal guns. Those guys commit the lion's share of our gun homicide.
Problem is, fixing it is a slow and expensive generational process. You need better schools, mental health care, child care, reproductive care, and real jobs for people to aspire to (not just flipping burgers). This costs billions.
If you want to criticize us for something- criticize us for spending billions/trillions on military (we have more military force than the next 10 nations combined, including all our major enemies) when our budgets are fucked and we can't even seem to take care of our own citizens. THAT is worthy of your criticism (and mine).
I'm not aware of another developed nation where getting cancer means you've got a good chance of going bankrupt. THAT ISN'T NORMAL and we should be fixing that shit.
What you say in this comment seems inconsistent with what you said in the previous one, namely that if you try to break into someone's stuff (e.g. an unoccupied parked car in this case) you should expect to be shot at. Going straight to deadly force to protect one's property is the bit people (at least, many non-Americans) think is not normal.
Finally a somewhat intelligent comment that isn't just restating a talking point.
You're (understandably) conflating as one position what is actually two
I think in general it should be legal to use deadly force to defend major property. IE I don't think it should be legal to shoot someone for stealing a pack of gum, but I think in many cases it should be legal to shoot someone for stealing larger items that make up a person's livelihood. I take this position not because I think human life is worth less than tools or cars (I don't feel that way) but because if you take any other position, you have a situation where the lawful owner of said property is legally required to basically sit there and watch while a criminal steals their shit.
Police aren't always seconds away. In much of the USA, police are tens of minutes or hours away.
What should be legal is one half of the coin, the other half is what I as a gun owner want to actually do.
To make an extreme example- I'm a strong advocate of the 1st Amendment (free speech). I believe I should have the right to take off all my clothes, cover the bare minimum in duct tape and cardboard, and walk down public streets telling all passers-by that I am the reincarnation of Napoleon and they should join my new army and help take over the world.
But while I support the right to do that, while I'd strongly advocate for that right, I have no desire to do such a thing myself.
As a gun owner, I have no desire to kill anyone ever. The same is true of virtually all gun owners I know, both online and off. (The one notable exception is a slightly nutty friend of mine who ended up joining the military and volunteered to go fight in Iraq/Afghanistan). There is nothing in my car that's worth taking a life for- even if the perpetrator is a lowlife criminal.
But I also take that as my choice to make for myself. Millions of gun owners would make the same choice- go on any gun forum or subreddit that deals with such things and you'll find few if any people suggesting that just shooting a guy who's stealing your unoccupied car is a good plan.
Does that make sense?
Thanks for the reply. It makes sense, though I would jump off at a different point from you. I tend to feel that if it comes to life vs property, even the life of a robber who is making others miserable and afraid, life generally wins no matter what the property is. That is, I don't myself feel like it is ever worth taking a life to preserve property, and I hope that if I found myself in the situation of being robbed of something dear to me, I would be able to let the property go and the robber live, painful though it would be. But I also don't believe ethical questions can arrive at a final answer. There's too much nuance in every situation so I wouldn't propose this as "the right answer". It's just how I currently feel on the matter. Another aspect of this view is that while I wouldn't condemn in advance anyone who shoots in such a situation, I'd understand it better if they were afraid for themselves rather than just for their property.
Thankfully I'm not a legislator so I don't need to try to codify this into law, and I appreciate your position, which seems that be that although you probably wouldn't yourself shoot in this situation, you don't think others should be branded criminals for doing so. I don't want to pronounce on that matter, but just to observe that your position is probably more common in the USA than in, for example, many European countries, hence it seeming unusual to many of us non-Americans.
while I wouldn’t condemn in advance anyone who shoots in such a situation, I’d understand it better if they were afraid for themselves rather than just for their property.
And that is my position exactly.
Go on various self-defense subreddits or online forums, like /r/CCW, and you'll find a very similar attitude. There will be a couple who'd say 'shoot the thief' but the overwhelming majority take the position of 'you shoot to stop the threat, in self defense, only when necessary' and many would even take the position that it's a 'bad shoot' to shoot someone just breaking into a car. Confront them maybe, shoot them if they move to attack, but don't just shoot the guy in the back as he's stealing your MacBook.
The other issue is- while I'm not a legislator, I am a citizen of a representative democracy. So in a sense, it is my job to write the law, or at least, to make educated choices in what laws and policies I advocate for and against.
To that end, anyone making any law must consider that there will be times it backfires, doesn't apply correctly, etc. And whenever that happens, I'd always rather err on the side of giving the citizen defending themself or their property more leeway than providing additional protections to a criminal who's engaged in clearly illegal acts against said citizen (which necessarily means punishments for the citizen defending against said criminal).
Right. Except everybody leaves their fire extinguishers at home. And their fire extinguishers don't cause other fires. And they're not widely used by stupid incompetent people to cause harm either.
Your argument doesn't make any sense to any other normal sane person outside of the United States.
Using deadly force to kill someone should be hard to access and only be used when your own life is in danger. Which can be anytime, anywhere by anybody in the US because of how accessible it is.
Ending a life shouldn't be something anybody can do.
"It is not the tool that determines it's work, it is the mind of the man that holds the tool that does." --Brannon LaBouef
Like any tool, a gun can be used for good or evil. The vast majority of gun uses in the USA are 'defensive gun uses', which are legal gun owners stopping or preventing a crime. There's minimum 10x more DGUs than firearm homicides, perhaps 100x or even more.
Ending a life shouldn’t be something anybody can do.
But ending a life IS something anybody can do, and you don't need a gun to do it.
Good. If you try to break into someone else's shit, you should reasonably expect to get shot at.
In many other contexts this would be downvoted to oblivion on Lemmy.
Good. If you try to break into someone else’s shit, you should reasonably expect to get shot at.
In many other contexts this would be downvoted to oblivion on Lemmy.
In many other contexts, this is fucking insane.
Why? Serious question.
I'm getting down votes, if you disagree, then please engage and tell me why?
I’ve noticed a significant correlation between people who reject all contemplation of violence as ethical behavior, and those who refuse to engage in debate with those holding differing beliefs about ethics.
Well said.
In the words of Aristotle, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Lot of not very educated minds in the world these days :(
And robbing someone's car isn't insane?
Exactly right. If the article says "home owner shoots armed robber attempting to kidnap children" you'd have people losing their minds about guns and violence. Also people would be upset that the person owned a home...
Who has ever been upset at people owning their own home?
Yeah I've noticed :-( Lemmy overall seems much less tolerant of gun ownership or use of force than Reddit. Even when it is obviously justified.
The headline could be, "Good Samaritan opens fire to defend disabled orphan POC child and her blind 3-legged rescue kitten from white supremacist pedophile rape gang" and half the comments would be how the stupid hick Republican ammosexual who wants more school shootings is so worthless he needs to carry around a lethal penis extender.
But throw in a little criticism of government or police... Heh
Because a world where people are firing guns at each other all the time is INSANE, regardless of the context. Most of the developed world has figured this out.
If you look at the data, the vast majority of people who are 'firing guns at each other all the time' are gang members in low-income inner cities.
To distill a bunch of stats, half the people of the US own guns, and they own enough guns to arm the other half and have plenty left over.
Per FBI, there's about 10k-15k firearm homicides per year. That means on average an American has a 0.005% chance of being killed by a gun in any given year.
If we truly were 'firing guns at each other all the time' that number would be WAY WAY WAY WAY higher.
The whole point of equality is that we’re all supposed to have the same rights and responsibilities.
Couldn't agree more. Biden gets to protect his family with guns. I think you and me should have that right also.
If I take a shot without being sure I'm gonna hit a criminal, I'm in big trouble. But if a cop/guard does the same, oh well.
Glad this was just a stupid GTA cosplay and not something much worse.
Area has an increase of car jackings, according to the article, so it was probably some unlucky thieves breaking into the unoccupied SUV.
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.
There is a chance that documents regarding schedules and other sensitive matters may be in the vehicle. A security leak of that nature could be life threatening to a bigger target. Alternatively, being stranded would leave Naomi vulnerable to kidnapping and assault.
Not saying the shooting was an appropriate response given the location, but the agents are right to be aggravated given the line of work and stakes involved.
Something I haven't seen yet is there's the possibility (in the split second decision making, not hindsight) that they were attempting to sabotage the vehicle in some way. That vehicle would be their primary escape and disabling or trapping it could be the prelude to an attack or kidnapping attempt.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Secret Service agents protecting President Joe Biden’s granddaughter opened fire after three people tried to break into an unmarked Secret Service vehicle in the nation’s capital, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.
The agents, assigned to protect Naomi Biden, were out with her in the Georgetown neighborhood late Sunday night when they saw the three people breaking a window of the parked and unoccupied SUV, the official said.
The official could not discuss details of the investigation publicly and spoke to the AP on Monday on the condition of anonymity.
The three people were seen fleeing in a red car, and the Secret Service said it put out a regional bulletin to Metropolitan Police to be on the lookout for it.
U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas was carjacked near the Capitol last month by three armed assailants, who stole his car but didn’t physically harm him.
In February, U.S. Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota was assaulted in her apartment building, suffering bruises while escaping serious injury.
The original article contains 249 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 31%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
What a shit title.
TIL objective facts are shit
Did they blow any lungs out?
Crazy that they opened fire on people trying to break in to an unoccupied vehicle.
EDIT: Jesus Christ people. Do you think it's ok to discharge a firearm in public to attempt to wound or kill someone trying to break in to an unoccupied vehicle? That's insane.
A secret service vehicle likely has fully automatic weapons inside as well as encrypted radios with current keys and who knows what level of sensitive real time info on presidential movements. It wasn’t just an “unoccupied car” it was a liability that could lead to real danger to the public.
A secret service vehicle likely has fully automatic weapons inside
No one should be leaving weapons and especially full automatic weapons unattended in a god damn vehicle!
...who knows what level of sensitive real time info on presidential movements.
How fucking dumb do you have to be to leave sensitive security information lying around unattended in a vehicle!
It wasn’t just an “unoccupied car” it was a liability that could lead to real danger to the public.
Any vehicle so stuffed with weapons and confidential information that it needs to be defended by lethal force shouldn't be parked and left unattended on a public street! Everything that you've offered isn't justification for lethal force, it's describing behavior so negligent that it would literally rise to the level of CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for any regular person.
literally rise to the level of CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for any regular person.
Yeah no shit dude it's the secret service.
You honestly don't want the SS to have guns stashed inside vehicles? Really?
Cmon bud. Think this through.
How fucking dumb do you have to be to leave sensitive security information lying around unattended in a vehicle!
Literally everything about the vehicle is sensitive security information
The guns wouldn’t just be laying across the back seat but they have to be stored somewhere. Most law enforcement vehicles have fixed weapon mounts or ways to lock them in the trunk. The problem is that if the vehicle is stolen it takes 5 min with a power tool to get through virtually any vehicle based mount. The locks prevent smash and grabs but with full possession of the vehicle the guns are up for grabs. As for information, an encrypted laptop is one thing but even knowing which frequencies and codes are used that day might be valuable to the wrong person. I don’t know, I’m not USSS but I am an Air Force pilot who has flown them all over the world and been in their cars/limos. I also know how loading military encryption into the jet is and I imagine it’s not too different from their gear. On a side note, when you see a USSS dog in a “do not pet” vest, it’s not illegal to ask to pet it. I have petted sooooo many “do not pet” goodbois.
The problem is that if the vehicle is stolen it takes 5 min with a power tool to get through virtually any vehicle based mount.
I'm aware of vehicle mounts and the ease at which firearms can be removed from them. Its why every LE agency I'm aware of has a policy that you can't leave the vehicle unattended with weapons stored in them.
...an encrypted laptop is one thing...
These should not be left in an unattended vehicle. Even a complete moron knows not to leave valuables in a parked car in the D.C. area and the USSS are not morons. They are people and they fuck up occasionally but they are not morons.
I am an Air Force pilot...
Then you should be well aware of the rules regarding the handling of classified information. At the most basic level its not lawful to leave it unattended in any area where someone with insufficient clearance could gain access to it.
The USSS Personnel who discharged their firearm(s) weren't fighting off terrorists or trying to keep weapons or confidential information secure. According to the released details they fucked up and fired when they shouldn't have at suspects who presented no clear danger.
I have petted sooooo many “do not pet” goodbois.
Goodbois deserve all the pets, as long as you have permission. 🙂
It's easy to dehumanizing people.
Yes, however keeping humanity in mind does not mean you never fire your weapon.
Shooting at someone for trying to break into an unoccupied car is an extreme response. Pointing a weapon at them should have been more than enough
There are real threats at that level though. Disabling the SUV could easily be the prelude to an attack because it's the primary mode of escape. If that's not it then you're also responsible for protecting the automatic rifles and classified information in the vehicle. The vehicle itself is also highly classified to prevent people from knowing how to breach it's armor.
Presumably they went through the use of force continuum and got to warning shot because the guy ain't dead and the Secret Service protection agents train at an elite level.
Common sense says you don't need to shoot at people trying to break into a car.
What about protecting the President's family says "common" to you?
She wasn't in the vehicle...
I refer you to my original comment.
If that’s not it then you’re also responsible for protecting the automatic rifles and classified information in the vehicle. The
No vehicle stuffed with automatic weapons and classified information should be parked in a public area and left unattended. You'd have to be dumber than a fucking rock to do it because leaving full auto weapons and / or classified information unsecured are criminal violations under Federal Law!
Well it seems like it wasn't left unattended at all.
You're downvoted but that surprised me as well, being the Secret Service and not [local] police. The perpetrators fled in a vehicle. Doesn't sound like they were a threat; just car thieves trying to flee.
Important to note that only one Secret Service member opened fire. That makes me more suspicious that it was an unjustified use of force.
That's an irresponsible reason to discharge firearms in public. Not worth risking innocent bystanders' lives over petty car thieves.
I expect this armchair analyst from reddit.
Welp, looks like we got them here too
What exactly are we supposed to talk about in the comments section of an article?
The weather is nice but I heard it was supposed to rain tomorrow. Hey did you read that other article about Trump? I don't want an opinion, just to know if you've seen it. As you know we're forbidden from offering opinions.
Ideally not make things up and treat it as fact.
Yeah, fuck me for expressing an opinion in relevant discussion that differs from yours.
I hoped toxic circle-jerking, downvoting every dissenting opinion, and upvoting memes and off-topic jokes over relevant discussion would stay on reddit, but here we are.
The problem isn't stating a opinion. You literally made up shit based on a sentence..
The Secret Service are cop-adjacent to the point that they more than deserve a side eye at the best of times.
But a visibly unarmed person trying to get into the car could very easily be carrying explosives. Since... that would be a reason you would try to compromise the vehicle of a high value target. It goes against basically all gun safety, but driving them off from a likely populated area is probably in that "Net good?" territory.
Especially after trump's presidency and the actions of his corrupt secret service officers, I think they need both eyes staring; not just a side eye.
I just have different expectations of different law enforcement agencies. I guess the stakes are significantly higher in protecting VIPs as secret service, but I still don't believe that it warrants risking the lives of bystanders in this scenario.
I don't believe Biden's grand daughter's life is more valuable than a random passerby's. But obviously the secret service aren't going to view it that way. I can comprehend their duty, but I disagree with firing here.
Reality isn't an episode of NCIS or the show where Little Stark clearly has an Oedipus Complex. Bombs are big with a large radius, especially if they are set up to project shrapnel. The brave veteran walking up is just encouraging them to trigger the detonator and said veteran's misted body isn't going to really protect anyone. If anything, it will mean bone fragments.
100 meters is approximately an American football field. I sincerely doubt the Secret Service parked her car a football field away from any buildings or other people.
Firing a gun "as a warning" is immensely stupid and dangerous. But I can very much see a world where it is better to risk shooting one or two civillians than it is letting dozens, if not hundreds, get killed while you attempt to surround said terrorist.
It is less saying that Joey's Granddaughter is more valuable than civilians. It is saying that many civilians are more valuable than one or two.
I largely disagree and would want a pretty thorough investigation by a trustworthy third party (and since ACAB, that doesn't exist...) but I can very much see the math on how this was a lesser evil.
Reality isn't an episode of NCIS
Proceeds to sound like someone who's watching too much crime/action TV, and is jumping to conclusions about random internet strangers and secret service members...
And where are you getting this bomb threat and warning shot? The article repeatedly states they "opened fire" and there is absolutely no mention of a bomb or a warning shot.
Are you just assuming the shots fired were warning shots? Are you assuming they perceived this to be a bomb threat? It seems like you're constructing a straw man argument.
And 3 men attempting to break into a car is not something I think justifies jumping to the conclusion of explosives or use of lethal force.
Deepest apologies for not restating the entirety of this discussion thread every single time I reply. I forget that not everyone has the ability to keep a concept in their head for more than one reply.
I am going to assume you read the article. In part because if you are incapable of remembering that then there is no point discussing anything at all. Mostly because I am too lazy to drag the joke on that long.
So what we know is:
Strange people were trying to break into the vehicle of a high value target. At least one secret service agent opened fire. They allowed the suspects to escape in a different car.
That tells me that they were not "shooting to kill". Otherwise they would have lit up that car like it was Murphy asking Red Foreman about the letter of leniency he wrote.
Which gets back to: People are tampering with the vehicle of a high value target. Maybe they aren't carrying guns. But they very easily could be carrying a bomb to use to kill said person.
I REALLY hope protocol is not to just unload and ask questions later... I would not be overly shocked if it were. But if you have decided someone is a threat, and a bomb threat is a very reasonable assumption in this case, standing around establishing a perimiter is not really an option if you at all care about the surroundings. And putting down your gun, taking out your earwig, and approaching them is stupid beyond belief if your name is not Leroy Jethro Gibbs.
I've had to work with other orgs to make emergency protocols for facilities in the past. And bomb threats really are "Basically everyone is fucked because the act of warning people is a good way to set it off". Fire, active shooter, and even biological attacks are situations where your goal is to save everyone (whether law enforcement are on the same page is a different problem...). Bombs? You are on triage. You are trying to minimize harm while acknowledging that, if it is real, people will die.
Wow.. way to extrapolate a great many assumptions from such little information. You really ought to be careful jumping to conclusions around all those slippery slopes.
And yes, I remembered your other comment. Have you ever heard of rhetorical questions? Do you understand how questions can be used to make points and further discussion?
It's always entertaining to me when someone attempts to paint someone as an idiot, and is too dense to realize they are making such ass of themselves.
Thanks for the amusement. I try not to feed trolls and toxic users, so this is it. Feel free to get the last word in to feel like you "won" an argument and pat yourself on the back.
Hopefully some day you can smell your own shit on your knees.
The Secret Service are law enforcement. Protecting presidents and their families is there most visible role but their original mandate and still primary role is to protect the integrity of US currency with a particular focus on combating counterfeiting.
Yes. Scope creep and repurposing is a long tradition.
But it is also largely irrelevant in this case as the investigative training and procedures used by the currency division are largely unrelated to the bodyguarding done by the.. bodyguard division. It is like arguing that all Army Pilots and Mechanics are also specialized in close quarters combat and clearing buildings. Maybe they remember some stuff from basic training but they are on a drastically different career path.
Culturally? I doubt they are all that different and plenty of them are all about "blue lives matter". But that is why I say they are "cop-adjacent".
The Secret Service are police. They are most well known for protecting presidents and their families but their original and primary mandate is to protect the integrity of US currency. They have jurisdiction over all federal financial crimes and a particular focus on counterfeiting.
I understand that. What I meant was in comparison to local police and Sherrifs departments. I certainly don't view them the same, just as I have different expectations from FBI, DEA, etc. (None very positive, mind you..)
This is America.
If the secret service didn't use excessive force they would probably be reprimanded!
No mention that the thieves had weapons or anything.
Just start blasting?
No mention that they were unarmed either. The article in general is very light on details.
For all we know the secret service shot their own car in a very loud demonstration of "fuck off"
The car is most likely bullet proof
Meaning it’s far more expensive to repair if it gets hit
Wait...so if I see someone breaking a window on an unoccupied vehicle I can just go ahead and start shooting at them?
Don't break the window of a vehicle belonging to the Presidents family.
It was unmarked.
A thing can be two things.
So?
In Texas you can.
No, you are first supposed to go up to them, putting yourself in unnecessary danger, so they have a chance of getting your gun and then shoot them. Rittenhouse style.
The title looks like it's trying to imply that the thiefs specifically targeted her, when the article makes it more clear that they likely just tried to steal the car not knowing it was from the Secret Service.
Gotta add that clickbait for the views 🙄
Sad thing is, it probably would have generated as many hits if the headline was more open. I mean that’s freaking hilarious in a morbid way - that the would be thieves just happened to pick the wrong car to try and steal.
The new and improved bait car with active defenses!
How would you have written it?
Not OP
Secret Service agents protecting Biden’s granddaughter open fire when 3 people pick the wrong SUV to streal.
Secret Service Fires Shots at Car Thieves
But we don't do non sensationalist headlines anymore.
That implies that there was a right SUV to steal.
You just made me realize that the original headline doesn't specify that the SUV is where the granddaughter is. You also make that mistake.
I think we can do better. Let's see:
Secret Service open fire at thieves who unknowingly attempted to break into SUV carrying Biden's granddaughter.
And I still think we can do better, but right now I'm le tired.
The vehicle was empty, it wasn't carrying anyone.
Ah, serves me right for not reading TFA.
In that case I would have simply written what @Maggoty@lemmy.world wrote in this very thread.
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.
Yup. Me too. It would be on brand.
That was my assumption too. Do we have indication one way or the other, that it was targeted or random?
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.
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
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.
They don't have a giant label but it's not hard to tell either.
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.
FTA:
Awesome that they were trying to break into a car, and it turned out to be an unmarked Secret Service vehicle.
That is some seriously bad situational awareness combined with some terribly bad luck for those thieves.
Then there is the fortune that they were allowed to flee the scene.... unharmed....
Would they be dare to open another chest, knowing it may become a mimic really fast?
If they're anything like my Pathfinder group, yes. They might even be more likely to try cuz you get loot and XP.
Just use mage hand and ready actions. Mimics are easy to deal with.
I plan to run a campaign one day with mimics that look like dead bodies. That will mess the players up.
Not gonna lie, you had me in the first half.
Are we not acknowledging that an agent opened fire on people for breaking into a vehicle? There's no danger to anyone's life yet a Secret Service agent just opens fire in public where, based on the article, there were likely hundreds of other citizens around shopping.
By itself, you are absolutely correct. It's a property crime and nothing more. When local cops shoot these people, you are right to be upset.
But the secret service (etc) deals in situations where these things may not be isolated. It's easy to imagine a scenario where step 1 is to isolate/strand the target, while step 2 is much more sinister. Part of their standard operations is going to be ensuring they always have an exit strategy, should the need arise.
Beyond that, there is also the very real danger of terrorism. In this case, it seems that the would-be thieves had no idea who they were targeting. But there are plenty of people who could've been following them, waiting for an opportunity.
Also, you're making a very bold assumption about how many potential bystanders there were. I don't know the area where it happened, but very little of my shopping has more than a handful of people at a time anywhere near my vehicle.
Bullets, even from small handguns, travel a very long distance very fast until they hit something. This is exceptionally negligent. It doesn't matter how many bystanders there were. The most common round used in handguns is a 9mm, and it travels at upwards of 1300 feet per second and can travel for miles. No one's life was in immediate danger, there was no reason to discharge a firearm in public. I've owned guns all my life and it's negligent things like this that make responsible owners and competent police look bad.
Also missed. That’s somewhat worrying
Secret Services have the accuracy of a stormtrooper
Breaking into a vehicle being guarded by the Secret Service is absolutely a threat to would-be occupants.
Bombs, tracking devices, exotic methods, even just searching the car is all a tangible threat to the occupant
But their charge was WITH them. There was no immediate danger. If you're worried about the vehicle being tampered with, you call in another one. You don't open fire in the vicinity of a market on a Sunday. Unless something inside that vehicle is a matter of national security or someone was in it, there is zero justification for opening fire. I say this as a lifelong gun owner, this is exceptionally negligent. You do not discharge your weapon at someone, especially in public, unless there are lives in danger, especially in a populated area where you do not know who or what are further down range.
Note to self: Don't fuck with Naomi's car
As illegal and unlawful as it would be, I think it would have been infinitely funnier if they had succeeded in car jacking a Secret Service SUV.
Can you imagine seeing some tutorial get uploaded explaining how to bypass the key starter like a KIA lmao
Good. If you try to break into someone else's shit, you should reasonably expect to get shot at.
It is worrying to me that the supposedly highest trained security guards in the world couldn't actually hit their target. I would expect better in terms of both accuracy and fire discipline.
It is also worrying that if a citizen like you or me tried to defend ourselves and our property in the same way in much of these nation including DC, we would go to jail. I think we deserve the same rights as 'important people'.
Imagine living in a country where people are so obsessed with guns that everybody has guns and everyone is a potential threat or one insult away from doing a mass shooting. It's gotten so bad that America has become a parody of Grand Theft Auto, where you can actually feel safer as a character in a video game that glorifies violence and crime.
Your nation has gone beyond ape shit.
There isn't another developed nation in the world where gun violence is as big a problem as in America.
This ISN'T NORMAL.
Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates in the US are 33 times greater than in Australia and 77 times greater than in Germany. Gun violence accounts for over 8% of deaths in the US among those under age 20.
https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier
Break out the 'firearm deaths of under 20yos' stat by income, or average income of residential area where they live. You'll see a STRONG correlation. That's because an awful lot of our gun crime is by violent drug gangs in inner city areas.
That link has a great breakdown though of firearm homicide rate by state. I'll point out there's little or no correlation between gun control policy and firearm homicide rate there. Washington, DC and Maryland have some of the strictest gun control in the country, and the most firearm homicides. Vermont, New Hampshire, and Utah have among the least gun control and highest gun ownership rate, but among the lowest firearm homicide rate. Then there are states that have the expected effect- Hawaii (very anti-gun) with low gun death rate, Alaska (lots of guns) with high gun death rate.
But what that all says is that there's not a causation between gun ownership or gun policy and gun homicide rate. I suspect you'd find a better correlation with poverty than with gun ownership.
What about the other two more important statistics? Stop killing kids with your emotional support weapons you fucking cowards.
the 'key statistics' at the top--
I addressed the which state is which, I addressed the under-20s dying of gun homicide. If I didn't address them enough please feel free to ask for detail on whatever part of it you wish to focus on.
As for the other key point (US has more gun homicide than Germany or AU)- that one's more complicated.
There's an obvious answer that there's more guns in USA, thus more gun homicide- much the same as you get more drownings in Miami (where everyone's at the beach) than Kansas (where there's no water).
However I think focusing on homicide rate by weapon is of limited use. I think overall homicide rate is more important-- if in one place the homicide rate is 1/10million and most of them are stabbings and in another place the homicide rate is 1/10million and most of them are shootings, neither one is safer than the other.
I suspect USA has higher overall homicide rate than either of those two places. But I think the root causes for that are the 'hard problems' we ignore- poverty, drugs, gangs, hopelessness, etc. DE and AU have decent modern health care systems and actually take care of their population. Mental health care is available and affordable. Strong social safety net keeps people out of extreme poverty. Thus- less drug use, less gangs, and of course less violence from the gangs.
I'm sure there's some part of that difference that comes from side effects of our gun policies, so don't think I'm being obtuse. Just that I don't think it's anywhere near the direct causation you seem to be claiming.
It doesn't matter what you think when there's evidence of what works.
"We've tried nothing, and it hasn't worked!" Says only country where this happens regularly.
Are you from the US? I'm assuming not. I mean no offense by this.
What most people from other places don't recognize is that the US is in effect 50 different countries. Each state has their own regulations, that in some cases are wildly different from the next.
That applies to gun laws also.
So it's most incorrect to say 'we tried nothing and it didn't work', when in reality we've tried 50 different things. That is the beauty of your link, if you look at the state by state data. There's 50 different visions of what gun policy should be, and 50 different outcomes. And this really does run the gamut. There are a few national-level laws, for example every gun store purchase must have a background check, and some case law that has defined what the government can and can't do to regulate, but for the most part it's up to each state to write their own policy.
In DC for example, you had a scheme that would fit in well anywhere in Europe- you need training and licensing to even get a permit to buy a gun, each gun has to be registered and test-fired before it can be delivered to the buyer. From beginning to end the process of buying a gun (which you couldn't even carry) took months and a dozen visits to various government agencies. I've heard it's since gotten a bit less strict, but it was like that for a LONG time.
DC has the highest rate of gun violence in the nation and has for a very long time.
Hawaii has gun control that's similarly strict, and has among the lowest gun homicide rate in the nation.
In Vermont for example you have what everyone accuses the entire USA of having- anyone can buy as many guns as they want with no training or licensing, and you can carry your gun loaded without a permit or proof of training. This is sometimes called 'Constitutional Carry' (the Constitution is your carry permit). Buying a gun is easy, other than the Federally-mandated background check, you can walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun in less than an hour.
Vermont has among the highest gun ownership rate, but among the lowest gun homicide rate.
Alaska is similar to Vermont (Constitutional Carry, high gun ownership rate) but among the highest gun homicide rate.
What those 4 states should tell you, is that gun policy or gun ownership rate are not necessarily drivers of gun homicide rate. Something else is going on that drives gun homicide rate.
So's the E.U. they got it to work. The excuses Americans will make for allowing themselves to ignore the dead kid problem is astounding. And you're right, there is more that drives homicide rate, like lack of social services, 10% of your population living without food security on an annual basis, 54% of your adult population reading below a 6th grade literacy level, there's a lot of big problems and you aren't fixing any of them.
And on this I am in 100% agreement. It's fucking shameful that we don't take care of our own people. But our government spends money it doesn't have like there's no tomorrow; our military is bigger than the next 10 in the world combined (including all of our enemies) and we continue to fund it at absurd rates, we have billions of $ worth of domestic spying invading our privacy. And while we fight over whether we protect kids with more guns or less guns, we then throw them in schools where teachers are barely able to scrape by, send them into a cutthroat society where corporations fuck over the employees with no remorse, and where if you're not rich you probably can't afford much in the way of decent health care.
Quite frankly it's shameful. It's appalling. If it or any part of it was imposed upon us by force by another nation, we'd all go to war and support using nukes against them. But we do it to ourselves so we smile and nod and say 'oh he got cancer and went bankrupt and couldn't afford treatment and died' like that's the way things are supposed to be.
And then in our politics we fight over should we elect this loser or that psycho, should we have more guns or less guns, should we have more immigration or more border security, meanwhile upward mobility is down, quality of life is down, the wealth of the nation is being extracted by big companies, and we're too distracted by random shit to fix the underlying problems.
So if you think I'm one of the 'Murica, fuck yeah!' people, I'm not. I love my country and I'm proud to be American, but I'm not proud of what my nation has become lately.
I would agree with this, but it's not about guns (especially since most of those kids are shot with illegal guns by people who can't legally own guns).
The problem is poverty. And we do fuck all about that.
No, it's "not about guns". We still have guns, I have friends who have guns, I've shot and hunted. It's about having the adequate systems in place for BEFORE people get the guns. And yes there are lots of guns already, but not putting in limitations won't make that number drop will it? Not trying voluntary buy-backs won't get unwanted guns out of normal citizens homes. Not having adequate food, wealth, and access to education isn't going to reduce the amount of crime that scared regular Americans into thinking they need emotional support weapons. Just do something, fucking anything. It's not that nothing works, it's that you refuse to try what works elsewhere because you've been fooled into thinking you're special individual snowflakes, but your ravenous individuality has eroded any capacity you have for co-operation with your fellow Americans in securing your right to live.
There's 500 million legal privately owned guns in the US. If you assume an average value of $450, that's $225 billion.
If I had $225 billion to spend, I sure as fuck wouldn't spend it buying back guns. I'd fund mental health care, I'd fund education, I'd fund jobs programs.
These DO happen in a lot of places, on a local or state level. Doesn't have much effect because the people who commit the crimes are the ones with illegal guns who aren't gonna sell them.
We are stupid in that we refuse to try things like single payer health care.
But I suspect almost any gun policy you'd come up with has been tried somewhere in the USA.
What you're really missing is there are two kinds of gun owners in USA- law-abiding and criminal. The law-abiding ones aren't committing most of the gun crime. Look at the stats for defensive gun use (when a law-abiding person uses a legal gun to stop or prevent a crime)- they aren't tracked by government so the data has to come from statistical surveys, but even the anti-gun people agree that DGUs happen 5-6x more often than firearm homicide.
Most DGUs end with no shots fired- criminal sees gun and runs away.
And with respect, this is a totally ignorant comment that's based on an anti-gun talking point and not any actual knowledge of American gun policy, gun ownership culture, stated reasons for owning guns, or anything other than conjecture and accusation.
You say 'try what works' (presumably referring to European-style gun control) but show no concept of understanding how truly difficult (damn near impossible) it would be to implement, even if a majority of the nation wanted it (which they don't). And you ignore the fact that much of what you call 'what works' HAS been tried, or is currently being tried.
I don't mean to insult you or personally attack you. But the fact is your accusations show little understanding of the REALITY of American gun ownership, why Americans buy and own guns, and what they do with them.
I'm happy to share what I know. But if your mind is concluded and closed, if you've just decided 'Americans are ammosexual hicks who refuse to give up their penis extenders to keep their own kids safe' and you are not open to even entertaining the possibility that reality is much more complex than that, then there's nothing I or anyone else can say.
If you want to understand, at least from one American's POV, like I said I'm happy to share. And IMHO it's fascinating- I wasn't always pro-gun, I wasn't raised around guns or gun culture, so what I know comes from my own independent research without most of the emotion you see in many gun arguments.
So my friend, can you try an open mind?
I don't know what nation you're from but America is nothing at all like this. Gun owners aren't like this.
People who don't understand American gun culture expect it's like GTA- everybody's strapped, fender-benders at traffic lights turn into firefights, don't dare tell anyone anything negative because they'll shoot you if they don't like what you say. This isn't at all the case though. Not even close.
Gun owners who carry guns look at it like a seat belt or fire extinguisher-- you hope to god you never need it, but if ever you do, having it might save your life. There is no action movie attitude of 'who do I shoot today?'. Gun owners recognize how serious a responsibility it is, and petty arguments rarely involve weapons fire, even in situations where everyone involved is armed.
We have a big problem with gun violence- but the majority of it is caused by our bigger problem of poverty and hopelessness in many areas. People turn to drugs, that are supplied by violent gangs who are all armed with illegal guns. Those guys commit the lion's share of our gun homicide.
Problem is, fixing it is a slow and expensive generational process. You need better schools, mental health care, child care, reproductive care, and real jobs for people to aspire to (not just flipping burgers). This costs billions.
If you want to criticize us for something- criticize us for spending billions/trillions on military (we have more military force than the next 10 nations combined, including all our major enemies) when our budgets are fucked and we can't even seem to take care of our own citizens. THAT is worthy of your criticism (and mine).
I'm not aware of another developed nation where getting cancer means you've got a good chance of going bankrupt. THAT ISN'T NORMAL and we should be fixing that shit.
What you say in this comment seems inconsistent with what you said in the previous one, namely that if you try to break into someone's stuff (e.g. an unoccupied parked car in this case) you should expect to be shot at. Going straight to deadly force to protect one's property is the bit people (at least, many non-Americans) think is not normal.
Finally a somewhat intelligent comment that isn't just restating a talking point.
You're (understandably) conflating as one position what is actually two
I think in general it should be legal to use deadly force to defend major property. IE I don't think it should be legal to shoot someone for stealing a pack of gum, but I think in many cases it should be legal to shoot someone for stealing larger items that make up a person's livelihood. I take this position not because I think human life is worth less than tools or cars (I don't feel that way) but because if you take any other position, you have a situation where the lawful owner of said property is legally required to basically sit there and watch while a criminal steals their shit.
Police aren't always seconds away. In much of the USA, police are tens of minutes or hours away.
What should be legal is one half of the coin, the other half is what I as a gun owner want to actually do.
To make an extreme example- I'm a strong advocate of the 1st Amendment (free speech). I believe I should have the right to take off all my clothes, cover the bare minimum in duct tape and cardboard, and walk down public streets telling all passers-by that I am the reincarnation of Napoleon and they should join my new army and help take over the world.
But while I support the right to do that, while I'd strongly advocate for that right, I have no desire to do such a thing myself.
As a gun owner, I have no desire to kill anyone ever. The same is true of virtually all gun owners I know, both online and off. (The one notable exception is a slightly nutty friend of mine who ended up joining the military and volunteered to go fight in Iraq/Afghanistan). There is nothing in my car that's worth taking a life for- even if the perpetrator is a lowlife criminal.
But I also take that as my choice to make for myself. Millions of gun owners would make the same choice- go on any gun forum or subreddit that deals with such things and you'll find few if any people suggesting that just shooting a guy who's stealing your unoccupied car is a good plan.
Does that make sense?
Thanks for the reply. It makes sense, though I would jump off at a different point from you. I tend to feel that if it comes to life vs property, even the life of a robber who is making others miserable and afraid, life generally wins no matter what the property is. That is, I don't myself feel like it is ever worth taking a life to preserve property, and I hope that if I found myself in the situation of being robbed of something dear to me, I would be able to let the property go and the robber live, painful though it would be. But I also don't believe ethical questions can arrive at a final answer. There's too much nuance in every situation so I wouldn't propose this as "the right answer". It's just how I currently feel on the matter. Another aspect of this view is that while I wouldn't condemn in advance anyone who shoots in such a situation, I'd understand it better if they were afraid for themselves rather than just for their property.
Thankfully I'm not a legislator so I don't need to try to codify this into law, and I appreciate your position, which seems that be that although you probably wouldn't yourself shoot in this situation, you don't think others should be branded criminals for doing so. I don't want to pronounce on that matter, but just to observe that your position is probably more common in the USA than in, for example, many European countries, hence it seeming unusual to many of us non-Americans.
And that is my position exactly.
Go on various self-defense subreddits or online forums, like /r/CCW, and you'll find a very similar attitude. There will be a couple who'd say 'shoot the thief' but the overwhelming majority take the position of 'you shoot to stop the threat, in self defense, only when necessary' and many would even take the position that it's a 'bad shoot' to shoot someone just breaking into a car. Confront them maybe, shoot them if they move to attack, but don't just shoot the guy in the back as he's stealing your MacBook.
The other issue is- while I'm not a legislator, I am a citizen of a representative democracy. So in a sense, it is my job to write the law, or at least, to make educated choices in what laws and policies I advocate for and against.
To that end, anyone making any law must consider that there will be times it backfires, doesn't apply correctly, etc. And whenever that happens, I'd always rather err on the side of giving the citizen defending themself or their property more leeway than providing additional protections to a criminal who's engaged in clearly illegal acts against said citizen (which necessarily means punishments for the citizen defending against said criminal).
Right. Except everybody leaves their fire extinguishers at home. And their fire extinguishers don't cause other fires. And they're not widely used by stupid incompetent people to cause harm either.
Your argument doesn't make any sense to any other normal sane person outside of the United States.
Using deadly force to kill someone should be hard to access and only be used when your own life is in danger. Which can be anytime, anywhere by anybody in the US because of how accessible it is.
Ending a life shouldn't be something anybody can do.
Like any tool, a gun can be used for good or evil. The vast majority of gun uses in the USA are 'defensive gun uses', which are legal gun owners stopping or preventing a crime. There's minimum 10x more DGUs than firearm homicides, perhaps 100x or even more.
But ending a life IS something anybody can do, and you don't need a gun to do it.
In many other contexts this would be downvoted to oblivion on Lemmy.
In many other contexts, this is fucking insane.
Why? Serious question. I'm getting down votes, if you disagree, then please engage and tell me why?
I’ve noticed a significant correlation between people who reject all contemplation of violence as ethical behavior, and those who refuse to engage in debate with those holding differing beliefs about ethics.
Well said.
In the words of Aristotle, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Lot of not very educated minds in the world these days :(
And robbing someone's car isn't insane?
Exactly right. If the article says "home owner shoots armed robber attempting to kidnap children" you'd have people losing their minds about guns and violence. Also people would be upset that the person owned a home...
Who has ever been upset at people owning their own home?
I think it was a joke, made me laugh anyway.
Communists?
Yeah I've noticed :-( Lemmy overall seems much less tolerant of gun ownership or use of force than Reddit. Even when it is obviously justified.
The headline could be, "Good Samaritan opens fire to defend disabled orphan POC child and her blind 3-legged rescue kitten from white supremacist pedophile rape gang" and half the comments would be how the stupid hick Republican ammosexual who wants more school shootings is so worthless he needs to carry around a lethal penis extender.
But throw in a little criticism of government or police... Heh
Because a world where people are firing guns at each other all the time is INSANE, regardless of the context. Most of the developed world has figured this out.
If you look at the data, the vast majority of people who are 'firing guns at each other all the time' are gang members in low-income inner cities.
To distill a bunch of stats, half the people of the US own guns, and they own enough guns to arm the other half and have plenty left over.
Per FBI, there's about 10k-15k firearm homicides per year. That means on average an American has a 0.005% chance of being killed by a gun in any given year.
If we truly were 'firing guns at each other all the time' that number would be WAY WAY WAY WAY higher.
The whole point of equality is that we’re all supposed to have the same rights and responsibilities.
Couldn't agree more. Biden gets to protect his family with guns. I think you and me should have that right also.
If I take a shot without being sure I'm gonna hit a criminal, I'm in big trouble. But if a cop/guard does the same, oh well.
I don't like double standards.
Glad this was just a stupid GTA cosplay and not something much worse.
Area has an increase of car jackings, according to the article, so it was probably some unlucky thieves breaking into the unoccupied SUV.
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.
There is a chance that documents regarding schedules and other sensitive matters may be in the vehicle. A security leak of that nature could be life threatening to a bigger target. Alternatively, being stranded would leave Naomi vulnerable to kidnapping and assault.
Not saying the shooting was an appropriate response given the location, but the agents are right to be aggravated given the line of work and stakes involved.
Something I haven't seen yet is there's the possibility (in the split second decision making, not hindsight) that they were attempting to sabotage the vehicle in some way. That vehicle would be their primary escape and disabling or trapping it could be the prelude to an attack or kidnapping attempt.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Secret Service agents protecting President Joe Biden’s granddaughter opened fire after three people tried to break into an unmarked Secret Service vehicle in the nation’s capital, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.
The agents, assigned to protect Naomi Biden, were out with her in the Georgetown neighborhood late Sunday night when they saw the three people breaking a window of the parked and unoccupied SUV, the official said.
The official could not discuss details of the investigation publicly and spoke to the AP on Monday on the condition of anonymity.
The three people were seen fleeing in a red car, and the Secret Service said it put out a regional bulletin to Metropolitan Police to be on the lookout for it.
U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas was carjacked near the Capitol last month by three armed assailants, who stole his car but didn’t physically harm him.
In February, U.S. Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota was assaulted in her apartment building, suffering bruises while escaping serious injury.
The original article contains 249 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 31%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
What a shit title.
TIL objective facts are shit
Did they blow any lungs out?
Crazy that they opened fire on people trying to break in to an unoccupied vehicle.
EDIT: Jesus Christ people. Do you think it's ok to discharge a firearm in public to attempt to wound or kill someone trying to break in to an unoccupied vehicle? That's insane.
A secret service vehicle likely has fully automatic weapons inside as well as encrypted radios with current keys and who knows what level of sensitive real time info on presidential movements. It wasn’t just an “unoccupied car” it was a liability that could lead to real danger to the public.
No one should be leaving weapons and especially full automatic weapons unattended in a god damn vehicle!
How fucking dumb do you have to be to leave sensitive security information lying around unattended in a vehicle!
Any vehicle so stuffed with weapons and confidential information that it needs to be defended by lethal force shouldn't be parked and left unattended on a public street! Everything that you've offered isn't justification for lethal force, it's describing behavior so negligent that it would literally rise to the level of CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for any regular person.
Yeah no shit dude it's the secret service.
You honestly don't want the SS to have guns stashed inside vehicles? Really?
Cmon bud. Think this through.
Literally everything about the vehicle is sensitive security information
The guns wouldn’t just be laying across the back seat but they have to be stored somewhere. Most law enforcement vehicles have fixed weapon mounts or ways to lock them in the trunk. The problem is that if the vehicle is stolen it takes 5 min with a power tool to get through virtually any vehicle based mount. The locks prevent smash and grabs but with full possession of the vehicle the guns are up for grabs. As for information, an encrypted laptop is one thing but even knowing which frequencies and codes are used that day might be valuable to the wrong person. I don’t know, I’m not USSS but I am an Air Force pilot who has flown them all over the world and been in their cars/limos. I also know how loading military encryption into the jet is and I imagine it’s not too different from their gear. On a side note, when you see a USSS dog in a “do not pet” vest, it’s not illegal to ask to pet it. I have petted sooooo many “do not pet” goodbois.
I'm aware of vehicle mounts and the ease at which firearms can be removed from them. Its why every LE agency I'm aware of has a policy that you can't leave the vehicle unattended with weapons stored in them.
These should not be left in an unattended vehicle. Even a complete moron knows not to leave valuables in a parked car in the D.C. area and the USSS are not morons. They are people and they fuck up occasionally but they are not morons.
Then you should be well aware of the rules regarding the handling of classified information. At the most basic level its not lawful to leave it unattended in any area where someone with insufficient clearance could gain access to it.
The USSS Personnel who discharged their firearm(s) weren't fighting off terrorists or trying to keep weapons or confidential information secure. According to the released details they fucked up and fired when they shouldn't have at suspects who presented no clear danger.
Goodbois deserve all the pets, as long as you have permission. 🙂
It's easy to dehumanizing people.
Yes, however keeping humanity in mind does not mean you never fire your weapon.
Shooting at someone for trying to break into an unoccupied car is an extreme response. Pointing a weapon at them should have been more than enough
There are real threats at that level though. Disabling the SUV could easily be the prelude to an attack because it's the primary mode of escape. If that's not it then you're also responsible for protecting the automatic rifles and classified information in the vehicle. The vehicle itself is also highly classified to prevent people from knowing how to breach it's armor.
Presumably they went through the use of force continuum and got to warning shot because the guy ain't dead and the Secret Service protection agents train at an elite level.
Common sense says you don't need to shoot at people trying to break into a car.
What about protecting the President's family says "common" to you?
She wasn't in the vehicle...
I refer you to my original comment.
No vehicle stuffed with automatic weapons and classified information should be parked in a public area and left unattended. You'd have to be dumber than a fucking rock to do it because leaving full auto weapons and / or classified information unsecured are criminal violations under Federal Law!
Well it seems like it wasn't left unattended at all.
You're downvoted but that surprised me as well, being the Secret Service and not [local] police. The perpetrators fled in a vehicle. Doesn't sound like they were a threat; just car thieves trying to flee.
Important to note that only one Secret Service member opened fire. That makes me more suspicious that it was an unjustified use of force.
That's an irresponsible reason to discharge firearms in public. Not worth risking innocent bystanders' lives over petty car thieves.
I expect this armchair analyst from reddit.
Welp, looks like we got them here too
What exactly are we supposed to talk about in the comments section of an article?
The weather is nice but I heard it was supposed to rain tomorrow. Hey did you read that other article about Trump? I don't want an opinion, just to know if you've seen it. As you know we're forbidden from offering opinions.
Ideally not make things up and treat it as fact.
Yeah, fuck me for expressing an opinion in relevant discussion that differs from yours.
I hoped toxic circle-jerking, downvoting every dissenting opinion, and upvoting memes and off-topic jokes over relevant discussion would stay on reddit, but here we are.
The problem isn't stating a opinion. You literally made up shit based on a sentence..
The Secret Service are cop-adjacent to the point that they more than deserve a side eye at the best of times.
But a visibly unarmed person trying to get into the car could very easily be carrying explosives. Since... that would be a reason you would try to compromise the vehicle of a high value target. It goes against basically all gun safety, but driving them off from a likely populated area is probably in that "Net good?" territory.
Especially after trump's presidency and the actions of his corrupt secret service officers, I think they need both eyes staring; not just a side eye.
I just have different expectations of different law enforcement agencies. I guess the stakes are significantly higher in protecting VIPs as secret service, but I still don't believe that it warrants risking the lives of bystanders in this scenario.
I don't believe Biden's grand daughter's life is more valuable than a random passerby's. But obviously the secret service aren't going to view it that way. I can comprehend their duty, but I disagree with firing here.
Reality isn't an episode of NCIS or the show where Little Stark clearly has an Oedipus Complex. Bombs are big with a large radius, especially if they are set up to project shrapnel. The brave veteran walking up is just encouraging them to trigger the detonator and said veteran's misted body isn't going to really protect anyone. If anything, it will mean bone fragments.
A quick search that has DEFINITELY got me on a few federal watch lists (time to test Kagi's privacy, I guess...). One kg of C4 is about a 100 meter radius. Which roughly lines up with https://www.dni.gov/files/NCTC/documents/features_documents/2006_calendar_bomb_stand_chart.pdf
100 meters is approximately an American football field. I sincerely doubt the Secret Service parked her car a football field away from any buildings or other people.
Firing a gun "as a warning" is immensely stupid and dangerous. But I can very much see a world where it is better to risk shooting one or two civillians than it is letting dozens, if not hundreds, get killed while you attempt to surround said terrorist.
It is less saying that Joey's Granddaughter is more valuable than civilians. It is saying that many civilians are more valuable than one or two.
I largely disagree and would want a pretty thorough investigation by a trustworthy third party (and since ACAB, that doesn't exist...) but I can very much see the math on how this was a lesser evil.
Proceeds to sound like someone who's watching too much crime/action TV, and is jumping to conclusions about random internet strangers and secret service members...
And where are you getting this bomb threat and warning shot? The article repeatedly states they "opened fire" and there is absolutely no mention of a bomb or a warning shot.
Are you just assuming the shots fired were warning shots? Are you assuming they perceived this to be a bomb threat? It seems like you're constructing a straw man argument.
And 3 men attempting to break into a car is not something I think justifies jumping to the conclusion of explosives or use of lethal force.
Deepest apologies for not restating the entirety of this discussion thread every single time I reply. I forget that not everyone has the ability to keep a concept in their head for more than one reply.
I am going to assume you read the article. In part because if you are incapable of remembering that then there is no point discussing anything at all. Mostly because I am too lazy to drag the joke on that long.
So what we know is:
Strange people were trying to break into the vehicle of a high value target. At least one secret service agent opened fire. They allowed the suspects to escape in a different car.
That tells me that they were not "shooting to kill". Otherwise they would have lit up that car like it was Murphy asking Red Foreman about the letter of leniency he wrote.
Which gets back to: People are tampering with the vehicle of a high value target. Maybe they aren't carrying guns. But they very easily could be carrying a bomb to use to kill said person.
I REALLY hope protocol is not to just unload and ask questions later... I would not be overly shocked if it were. But if you have decided someone is a threat, and a bomb threat is a very reasonable assumption in this case, standing around establishing a perimiter is not really an option if you at all care about the surroundings. And putting down your gun, taking out your earwig, and approaching them is stupid beyond belief if your name is not Leroy Jethro Gibbs.
I've had to work with other orgs to make emergency protocols for facilities in the past. And bomb threats really are "Basically everyone is fucked because the act of warning people is a good way to set it off". Fire, active shooter, and even biological attacks are situations where your goal is to save everyone (whether law enforcement are on the same page is a different problem...). Bombs? You are on triage. You are trying to minimize harm while acknowledging that, if it is real, people will die.
Wow.. way to extrapolate a great many assumptions from such little information. You really ought to be careful jumping to conclusions around all those slippery slopes.
And yes, I remembered your other comment. Have you ever heard of rhetorical questions? Do you understand how questions can be used to make points and further discussion?
It's always entertaining to me when someone attempts to paint someone as an idiot, and is too dense to realize they are making such ass of themselves.
Thanks for the amusement. I try not to feed trolls and toxic users, so this is it. Feel free to get the last word in to feel like you "won" an argument and pat yourself on the back.
Hopefully some day you can smell your own shit on your knees.
The Secret Service are law enforcement. Protecting presidents and their families is there most visible role but their original mandate and still primary role is to protect the integrity of US currency with a particular focus on combating counterfeiting.
Yes. Scope creep and repurposing is a long tradition.
But it is also largely irrelevant in this case as the investigative training and procedures used by the currency division are largely unrelated to the bodyguarding done by the.. bodyguard division. It is like arguing that all Army Pilots and Mechanics are also specialized in close quarters combat and clearing buildings. Maybe they remember some stuff from basic training but they are on a drastically different career path.
Culturally? I doubt they are all that different and plenty of them are all about "blue lives matter". But that is why I say they are "cop-adjacent".
The Secret Service are police. They are most well known for protecting presidents and their families but their original and primary mandate is to protect the integrity of US currency. They have jurisdiction over all federal financial crimes and a particular focus on counterfeiting.
I understand that. What I meant was in comparison to local police and Sherrifs departments. I certainly don't view them the same, just as I have different expectations from FBI, DEA, etc. (None very positive, mind you..)
This is America.
If the secret service didn't use excessive force they would probably be reprimanded!
No mention that the thieves had weapons or anything.
Just start blasting?
No mention that they were unarmed either. The article in general is very light on details.
For all we know the secret service shot their own car in a very loud demonstration of "fuck off"
The car is most likely bullet proof
Meaning it’s far more expensive to repair if it gets hit
There's an entirely different calculus around the protection of a country's leadership.
Shh
Car thieves are a blessing and have to be protected at all costs.
The continued functioning of the government?
Naw lemmy tankies don't have time for that.
Imagine opening fire on people trying to break into an unoccupied parked car. That's the reaction in a normal country. /s
Wait...so if I see someone breaking a window on an unoccupied vehicle I can just go ahead and start shooting at them?
Don't break the window of a vehicle belonging to the Presidents family.
It was unmarked.
A thing can be two things.
So?
In Texas you can.
No, you are first supposed to go up to them, putting yourself in unnecessary danger, so they have a chance of getting your gun and then shoot them. Rittenhouse style.
Also be white.