this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
571 points (94.3% liked)

politics

19240 readers
3006 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ragdoll_X 303 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)

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 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 (12 replies)
[–] LemmyIsFantastic 181 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Imagine just trying to break into a car and you fucking pick the presidents daughter.

Bad fucking luck there.

[–] [email protected] 144 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

[–] kautau 36 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] ultranaut 43 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] kautau 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] aceshigh 9 points 1 year ago

Yup. Me too. It would be on brand.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] aceshigh 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Imagine being an idiot in DC and not knowing how government cars/ protected cars look like.

[–] kautau 31 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah if you see a black SUV with tinted windows in DC it should be pretty self explanatory not to fuck with it

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Maggoty 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I've spent enough time in arcades to know that's just the plot to a kickass beat-em-up side scroller.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] silverbax 109 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

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....

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago

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

[–] mlg 28 points 1 year 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

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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'.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (8 children)

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 9 points 1 year ago (18 children)

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 25 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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 (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 42 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 19 points 1 year 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)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year 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!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›