Official Secret Service Press Release

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t understand why the SS didn’t just fire a warning shot in the air?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t understand why the SS didn’t just fire a warning shot in the air?

shooting at someone is use of deadly force. shooting into the air is negligent at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t think that the Secret Service and other federal law enforcement agencies particularly care about the handcuffs that our wise DC Council has chosen to slap on MPD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t understand why the SS didn’t just fire a warning shot in the air?

OMG. No wonder we elect the dipshts we do into office. People like this are the voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which bozo said this? Charles Allen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Large grenade-looking things in guns 3-5 feet long.”

Tell me you know less than nothing about firearms without actually saying those words.

Ashley is not the President.

This was by no stretch of the imagination a Presidential motorcade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

“Our taxpayer dollars” now justify deadly force in response to an allegation of property damage?

[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.

Federal agents do not fire warning shots.

Do you think bullets that are “shot away to deter” magically vanish when the miscreant flees. A .22 can kill someone a mile away. The discharge of a firearm always involves deadly force; the question is where and for what reason the force is applied.

Breaking into a parked vehicle is not robbery.

The indicated response would be to call for backup while assuming a position of tactical advantage and then issuing a verbal challenge. That a criminal “might” be armed can be cause to display a weapon. It is not justification for deadly force.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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
I don’t understand why the SS didn’t just fire a warning shot in the air?

shooting at someone is use of deadly force. shooting into the air is negligent at best.

Correct. You never know where that bullet will land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t understand why the SS didn’t just fire a warning shot in the air?

OMG. No wonder we elect the dipshts we do into office. People like this are the voters.

Yep. Sometimes I read stuff like this and it all comes together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t understand why the SS didn’t just fire a warning shot in the air?

Bless your heart...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t understand why the SS didn’t just fire a warning shot in the air?

OMG. No wonder we elect the dipshts we do into office. People like this are the voters.

Yep. Sometimes I read stuff like this and it all comes together.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

“Our taxpayer dollars” now justify deadly force in response to an allegation of property damage?

I have only heard idiots on the internet saying it was a bad shot. There is not even a hint from official channels that there was a problem other than that he missed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Ashley is not the President.

Honest question, do you not understand why the President’s family is under SS protection?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ashley is not the President.

Honest question, do you not understand why the President’s family is under SS protection?

I understand quite well. Levels of protection vary. It seems extremely unlikely that Ashley would be accompanied by, among other things routinely found in a Presidential motorcade, a counter assault team openly displaying the types of weapons the PP said they observed when the President came by. If that many people were involved in her detail it’s probably a safe bet to say this incident wouldn’t have occurred.

I’m still puzzled at whether the vehicle was left unattended (which seems unlikely and not a great practice), or whether the criminals approached an occupied government vehicle and just started trying to smash the windows.