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
3414 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
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.