• 18-24-61-B-17-17-4
    link
    English
    0
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • @flooppoolf
      link
      English
      43
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      deleted by creator

      • @flooppoolf
        link
        English
        26
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        deleted by creator

        • @tburkhol
          link
          161 year ago

          It’s not just secret service. There’s plenty of private citizens who’d open fire, no questions asked, on someone breaking into their car.

          • @Caradoc879
            link
            11 year ago

            And assuming there’s nobody else around but me and the guy breaking into my car…

            • @Maggoty
              link
              3
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Unless you’re buddies with the sheriff in the middle of farmtown; you’re going to have to explain the trajectory of your bullets being the wrong way around for self defense.

              • @DarthBueller
                link
                11 year ago

                "Who gives a fuck about an Oxford Comma … " - Vampire Weekend. Apparently you and I do, after seeing the commenter’s sentence construction.

      • BruceTwarzen
        link
        fedilink
        -71 year ago

        Like the time someone just walked into the whithouse and no one did anything because they in fact fuck around a lot. They just like to use their guns, it’s in their blood.

        • @Maggoty
          link
          41 year ago

          Walk in the right entrance at the right time and it’s not that hard. What’s hard is getting past the multiple checkpoints to get to anyone/anything sensitive.

    • @theyoyomaster
      link
      351 year ago

      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.

      • Buelldozer
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        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.

        • @theyoyomaster
          link
          21 year ago

          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.

          • Buelldozer
            link
            fedilink
            5
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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. 🙂

        • @SCB
          link
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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

      • @Zak
        link
        01 year ago

        None of which likely constitutes legal justification for deadly force without evidence the offenders’ intent was more than just burglary of an unoccupied car (an occupied car would be a different story). There might be a case for the fleeing felon rule after they stole guns, but it would be weak.

        I don’t have much sympathy for burglars, but shooting in an urban area poses a considerable risk to bystanders and should be reserved for imminent threats to life.

        • ElleChaise
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          Yes, the case against busted thieves stealing weapons from secret service agents would be “weak”. Talk about delusional, sheesh.

          • @Zak
            link
            41 year ago

            The case for shooting them to prevent escape following such a theft would be weak.

            Of course they can be arrested and prosecuted for a long list of crimes.

      • @Maggoty
        link
        -31 year ago

        Yes, however keeping humanity in mind does not mean you never fire your weapon.

        • @NocturnalMorning
          link
          61 year ago

          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

          • @Maggoty
            link
            -41 year ago

            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.

            • @NocturnalMorning
              link
              21 year ago

              Common sense says you don’t need to shoot at people trying to break into a car.

              • @Maggoty
                link
                0
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                What about protecting the President’s family says “common” to you?

            • Buelldozer
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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!

              • @Maggoty
                link
                11 year ago

                Well it seems like it wasn’t left unattended at all.

    • GONADS125
      link
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

        • iAmTheTot
          link
          fedilink
          131 year ago

          What exactly are we supposed to talk about in the comments section of an article?

          • @Maggoty
            link
            31 year ago

            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.

          • @Clent
            link
            -51 year ago

            There is no rule that you must comment. Silence is an option. Ignorant people often struggle with this concept.

              • @Clent
                link
                -61 year ago

                No one is gatekeeping your ignorance. They are the not down voting it. Big difference.

                Feeling victimized by any of this is something altogether different. I do get a strong sense of political leanings by it, however.

                • ElleChaise
                  link
                  fedilink
                  41 year ago

                  This is why your political leanings are disappearing, you know? You’re too concerned with slinging shit vs. actually doing anything useful.

                  • @Clent
                    link
                    -41 year ago

                    Claiming I’m slinging shit is a real dramatic take on this.

                    I do enjoy the pile on of ignorants fighting for their right to speak when no one said otherwise.

                    It’s really cute of easily you all feel victimized by this conversation.

                    I note that at no point, none you have disputed that you’re ignorant.

                    I don’t give any fucks if you post insipid comments. I haven’t even downvoted any of it (I cannot expect the same from you.) I have merely pointed out that some people might rightfully see it as noise and of course you have to double down on the noise because you people think loud and obnoxious is winning.

        • GONADS125
          link
          51 year ago

          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.

          • @Potatos_are_not_friends
            link
            -2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The problem isn’t stating a opinion. You literally made up shit based on a sentence…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        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.

        • GONADS125
          link
          7
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -4
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • GONADS125
              link
              101 year ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

                • GONADS125
                  link
                  31 year ago

                  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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

        • GONADS125
          link
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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…)

      • @Vqhm
        link
        -91 year ago

        This is America.

        If the secret service didn’t use excessive force they would probably be reprimanded!

    • @Feirdro
      link
      -11 year ago

      No mention that the thieves had weapons or anything.

      Just start blasting?

      • @brygphilomena
        link
        31 year ago

        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”

    • @Maggoty
      link
      -41 year ago

      There’s an entirely different calculus around the protection of a country’s leadership.

      • @Vqhm
        link
        -2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.