559
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
559 points (94.2% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3341 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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".