596
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Ragdoll_X@lemmy.world 316 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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 🙄

[-] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] silverbax@lemmy.world 111 points 11 months ago

FTA:

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.

[-] HuddaBudda@kbin.social 59 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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....

[-] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 19 points 11 months ago

Would they be dare to open another chest, knowing it may become a mimic really fast?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] 18_24_61_b_17_17_4@lemmy.world 56 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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.

[-] theyoyomaster@lemmy.world 40 points 11 months 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.

[-] Zak@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] GONADS125@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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.

[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago

I expect this armchair analyst from reddit.

Welp, looks like we got them here too

[-] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 15 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] GONADS125@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 13 points 11 months 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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Vqhm@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

This is America.

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Feirdro@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago

No mention that the thieves had weapons or anything.

Just start blasting?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 40 points 11 months ago

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'.

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 40 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] aidan@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Limit@lemm.ee 12 points 11 months ago

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...

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] clausetrophobic@sh.itjust.works 22 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mlg@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago

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

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 33 points 11 months ago

Note to self: Don't fuck with Naomi's car

[-] Gigate@sopuli.xyz 25 points 11 months ago

Glad this was just a stupid GTA cosplay and not something much worse.

[-] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 24 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 43 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I kind of think the bigger story is, why were Secret Service shooting at suspects trying to enter an empty vehicle?

My thoughts, from a layman. I could be totally off base here.

  • A secret service vehicle is likely armed and armored to the teeth, and the last thing anyone wants is 3 idiots cruisng around town in the equivalent of a soccer mom's tank. Also, it's probably bad enough that they have egg on their face from shooting at the suspect and missing; can you imagine the embarrassment of 3 secret service agents allowing one of their vehicles to be stolen by a group of randoms? There's also the fact that if they were successful, it would be a national security issue at the very least.

  • It's very likely that the windows are heavily tinted in order to make it impossible to see who or what is in the car, and the agents are likely trained to treat any attempt at breaking into or damaging the car as if the person under protection is inside of it, whether or not they actually are. Had the secret service not acted this way and this was actually a targeted attack, the bad actors would then know that the Secret Service doesn't respond the same way when the vehicle is empty, which is information that could be used in future attacks.

  • There is also the possibility that there's more to the story than we're being informed about, such as the possibility of a credible threat against Biden's granddaughter. If that's the case, those are details that we'll likely never, ever know about.

[-] Shazbot@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 14 points 11 months ago

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!

[-] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

What a shit title.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
596 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19136 readers
3394 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS