• @NuXCOM_90Percent
    link
    96 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.

    • GONADS125
      link
      fedilink
      7
      edit-2
      6 months 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.

      • @NuXCOM_90Percent
        link
        -4
        edit-2
        6 months 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
          fedilink
          106 months 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.

          • @NuXCOM_90Percent
            link
            -2
            edit-2
            6 months 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
              fedilink
              36 months 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.

    • Can_you_change_your_username
      link
      fedilink
      26 months ago

      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.

      • @NuXCOM_90Percent
        link
        3
        edit-2
        6 months 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”.