Official Secret Service Press Release

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is odd. Shooting at someone in a very crowded neighborhood when no one was in harms way doesn’t make sense and certainly isn’t SOP.

There are a bunch of Secret Service protectees in my immediate neighborhood and I can’t see the agents shooting like this.

The shooting occured "late Sunday night." According to one article I found, it was 11:58pm on Sunday night. It was also outside Naomi Biden's home. I have no idea where she lives in Georgetown, but I doubt it's on M Street or Wisconsin Ave. On a "work/school" night at midnight, on a neighborhood street in Georgetown, it probably isn't very crowded.

I should have been more clear: Gtown’s housing is very densely packed, not necessarily its streets. It would very easy to miss a target and hit someone sitting in their home or even asleep in their beds. It’s not the middle of nowhere and a stray bullet could cause some serious harm.

[Anonymous]

The SUV might have had additional weapons, ammunition or communications equipment in it. The USSD will never tell us. But yes they store this stuff is special vaults in the vehicles.

These vaults do not prevent someone from breaking in, they simply make the process take more time. The vaults are probably rated at a few hours of deliberated noisy effort.

This is all not unusual. Law enforcement/ DoD carries weapons in Ryder trucks and DOE carries nuclear weapons in 18 wheelers down the highway.

[Anonymous]

Things are getting really crazy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There may be part of the story we won't hear.

I also wonder if significant weapons in the car--automatic weapons to grenade launchers--that would would put agents at risk--justify the shooting.

I think this is the cause of the shooting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DC would FINALLY build more bike lanes the kids wouldn’t need to steal cars as often. #bikelanesarehumanrights

Oh, so that's why they are carjacking. They just need a ride and couldn't use the Kids Ride Free Metro and bus. I thought they were thrill seeking joyriders like the police reported.

No, no, that is not why they are carjacking. As I learned at a dinner party a few nights ago, they are carjacking because the District's summer jobs program doesn't pay well. And, so, they are left with no choice but to carjack. (And, the person who offered this explanation said all this with a straight face.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is Jeff???

Welcome to DCUM! https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/the-moms-of-washington-need-this-man/2015/06/26/83cbe092-0eed-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The SUV might have had additional weapons, ammunition or communications equipment in it. The USSD will never tell us. But yes they store this stuff is special vaults in the vehicles.

These vaults do not prevent someone from breaking in, they simply make the process take more time. The vaults are probably rated at a few hours of deliberated noisy effort.

This is all not unusual. Law enforcement/ DoD carries weapons in Ryder trucks and DOE carries nuclear weapons in 18 wheelers down the highway.

The highest rated anti-burglary safes are rated in the range of 60 minutes against power tools, torches, etc. So the proposition that the “vaults,” if any, inside a law enforcement vehicle might resist for “a few hours of deliberated noisy effort” is ludicrous. Such weapon lockers — they are not vaults in any meaningful sense of the word — might be rated for a few minutes against hand tools or crowbars.

But that is not the issue. The issue is whether deadly force was appropriate to prevent a break-in to a parked vehicle that may, or may not, have contained firearms, possibly locked in a vehicle-mounted container.

Unless/until the perpetrators actually had access to any vehicle-borne weapons and/or acted in a manner that would convince a reasonable law enforcement officer that the officer or someone else was in mortal danger, deadly force would seem to not have been appropriate.

A PP raised an interesting question, which is whether the vehicle was unoccupied or not. It would seem poor practice for a security detail not to leave someone with the vehicle. If the agent who fired the shots was inside the vehicle that would change things a great deal. It would not, however, increase confidence in the marksmanship of a supposedly trained individual firing at point blank or near point blank range at multiple targets in close proximity.

[Anonymous]

Look on the bright side: these hoodlums may think twice before they ply their criminal trade again in Georgetown!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:firing a gun for breaking into a car? what is happening?

The secret service stores high velocity weapons in their vehicles. Do you want those in the wrong hands? Are you even serious?

WTH is a “high velocity weapon”????

Have you never seen a motorcade? On Presidential motorcades returning from Camp David, for example, there are soldiers with large grenade-looking objects on guns 3-5 feet long.

I’m no expert. Maybe the PP meant something else. If they have a protectee, I assume they’ll have more than a handgun at their disposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they’d hit a kid (it was almost certainly a kid) we’d have riots today.

No. When the kid was shot and killed in the attempted carjacking in Judiciary Square, there were no riots.

Here, it wasn't an attempted carjacking, it would just be "unauthorized use" - kids are stealing ambulances and fire trucks as well as police cars/trucks, seems like a secret service vehicle is an obvious next step.

I though in D.C., they were not allowed to pursue these types of situations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:firing a gun for breaking into a car? what is happening?

They were carjacking a secret service car being used by someone under Secret Service protection.

Uhhh no they weren't. They were breaking into an unoccupied car. This is right in the press release. I think SS is pretty well-trained though, so I trust that they had a reason to fire the gun. YMMV.

They reason they fired the gun is because the criminals were engaged in behavior that put their protectee in danger.

They are not going to wait long enough to assess whether it’s just a run of the mill DC juvenile delinquent or a terrorist.

There is no indication in the press release or elsewhere that the protectee was ever in danger. The agent shot at people breaking into a vehicle.

This could have been a terrorist laying a bomb or someone trying to wiretap a secret service car. They were right to protect the car. Additionally, that's our taxpayer dollars at risk if this car was stolen and totaled.

Did you want secret service just to stand back and hand them the keys?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SUV might have had additional weapons, ammunition or communications equipment in it. The USSD will never tell us. But yes they store this stuff is special vaults in the vehicles.

These vaults do not prevent someone from breaking in, they simply make the process take more time. The vaults are probably rated at a few hours of deliberated noisy effort.

This is all not unusual. Law enforcement/ DoD carries weapons in Ryder trucks and DOE carries nuclear weapons in 18 wheelers down the highway.

The highest rated anti-burglary safes are rated in the range of 60 minutes against power tools, torches, etc. So the proposition that the “vaults,” if any, inside a law enforcement vehicle might resist for “a few hours of deliberated noisy effort” is ludicrous. Such weapon lockers — they are not vaults in any meaningful sense of the word — might be rated for a few minutes against hand tools or crowbars.

But that is not the issue. The issue is whether deadly force was appropriate to prevent a break-in to a parked vehicle that may, or may not, have contained firearms, possibly locked in a vehicle-mounted container.

Unless/until the perpetrators actually had access to any vehicle-borne weapons and/or acted in a manner that would convince a reasonable law enforcement officer that the officer or someone else was in mortal danger, deadly force would seem to not have been appropriate.

A PP raised an interesting question, which is whether the vehicle was unoccupied or not. It would seem poor practice for a security detail not to leave someone with the vehicle. If the agent who fired the shots was inside the vehicle that would change things a great deal. It would not, however, increase confidence in the marksmanship of a supposedly trained individual firing at point blank or near point blank range at multiple targets in close proximity.

Sorry but if SS wanted to shoot these kids, they would have. They likely shot away to deter the kids and make the kids run away. What do you think they should do instead? How would you get the attention of robbers who might have guns themselves?

I don't consider this deadly force.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they’d hit a kid (it was almost certainly a kid) we’d have riots today.

No. When the kid was shot and killed in the attempted carjacking in Judiciary Square, there were no riots.

Here, it wasn't an attempted carjacking, it would just be "unauthorized use" - kids are stealing ambulances and fire trucks as well as police cars/trucks, seems like a secret service vehicle is an obvious next step.

I though in D.C., they were not allowed to pursue these types of situations?

There wasn’t any pursuit in either situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SUV might have had additional weapons, ammunition or communications equipment in it. The USSD will never tell us. But yes they store this stuff is special vaults in the vehicles.

These vaults do not prevent someone from breaking in, they simply make the process take more time. The vaults are probably rated at a few hours of deliberated noisy effort.

This is all not unusual. Law enforcement/ DoD carries weapons in Ryder trucks and DOE carries nuclear weapons in 18 wheelers down the highway.

The highest rated anti-burglary safes are rated in the range of 60 minutes against power tools, torches, etc. So the proposition that the “vaults,” if any, inside a law enforcement vehicle might resist for “a few hours of deliberated noisy effort” is ludicrous. Such weapon lockers — they are not vaults in any meaningful sense of the word — might be rated for a few minutes against hand tools or crowbars.

But that is not the issue. The issue is whether deadly force was appropriate to prevent a break-in to a parked vehicle that may, or may not, have contained firearms, possibly locked in a vehicle-mounted container.

Unless/until the perpetrators actually had access to any vehicle-borne weapons and/or acted in a manner that would convince a reasonable law enforcement officer that the officer or someone else was in mortal danger, deadly force would seem to not have been appropriate.

A PP raised an interesting question, which is whether the vehicle was unoccupied or not. It would seem poor practice for a security detail not to leave someone with the vehicle. If the agent who fired the shots was inside the vehicle that would change things a great deal. It would not, however, increase confidence in the marksmanship of a supposedly trained individual firing at point blank or near point blank range at multiple targets in close proximity.

Sorry but if SS wanted to shoot these kids, they would have. They likely shot away to deter the kids and make the kids run away. What do you think they should do instead? How would you get the attention of robbers who might have guns themselves?

I don't consider this deadly force.

Sadly, I think you’re right. It was a missed opportunity that now has left regular DC citizens who don’t have protective detail in more danger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DC would FINALLY build more bike lanes the kids wouldn’t need to steal cars as often. #bikelanesarehumanrights

Oh, so that's why they are carjacking. They just need a ride and couldn't use the Kids Ride Free Metro and bus. I thought they were thrill seeking joyriders like the police reported.

No, no, that is not why they are carjacking. As I learned at a dinner party a few nights ago, they are carjacking because the District's summer jobs program doesn't pay well. And, so, they are left with no choice but to carjack. (And, the person who offered this explanation said all this with a straight face.)

No, that’s not it. These so-called carjackings are because it’s now cold outside and maybe some of these youths just want a warm place to sit down out of the cold.

- an explanation offered (with a straight face) by a DC councilperson asked about carjackings