Official Secret Service Press Release

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Such a bummer they missed.

I bet they didn't miss...they were warning shots

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I just laughed reading this. You literally have no clue what you’re saying but making stuff up all the same and pretending to be authoritative.

[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.

“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.

DP.

What’s specifically wrong with what she wrote? It sounded ok to me.

[Anonymous]

Striking that that the Post has not published an article. It is posting the AP report.

Any insight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Striking that that the Post has not published an article. It is posting the AP report.

Any insight?

Assuming that Carol Leonnig is getting the real scoop.

[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 love how you imply I’m the dumbass here for asking “WTH is a “high velocity weapon”, and then proceed to describe something that doesn’t exist….then remind everyone you’re not an expert.


Never change, DCUM.

[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.

“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.

DP.

What’s specifically wrong with what she wrote? It sounded ok to me.

Beats me, DP. The gun nut up above with the “tell me you know nothing” nonsense needs to breathe.

It’s okay, dude. Not everyone is a gun expert.

[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 love how you imply I’m the dumbass here for asking “WTH is a “high velocity weapon”, and then proceed to describe something that doesn’t exist….then remind everyone you’re not an expert.


Never change, DCUM.

I wasn’t implying you’re dumb or that you are dumb for asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a popular fallacy that refuses to die.

A typical 40 grain lead round nose .22LR bullet doesn’t even have sufficient energy to break the skin at a mile, let alone kill anyone. At the far end of the ballistic trajectory needed to achieve a mile distance the velocity of the projectile will be ~200 fps, which is considerably less than even low-powered BB guns or air guns. It would basically have about the same energy/velocity as if it were flung from a sling shot. That’s not killing anyone.

[Anonymous]

The reason we have so much crime is right here folks. People indignantly armchair questioning why the Secret Service fired on someone breaking into their car. I don't know when we stopped thinking criminals should be deterred, much less by law enforcement, but that's why DC is a criminal playground now.

[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?

Like a cowboy on a horse, or an Afghan wedding?

[Anonymous]

I really don't care. Stupid games, stupid prizes.

Let Darwinism take over. All of the idiots get the karma prize of death or 25 years to life in prison.

Restore law and order please.

[Anonymous]

Have they arrested the 3 youth yet? Have they found the red car? Did they get the license plate numbers?