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

politics

19144 readers
3996 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

where in the article does it say that democrats are being targeted? In addition, I feel user Ragdoll is correct that the title makes it seem worse that the situation actually was (though I guess there isn't an easier way to write the title), the SUV was not occupied when the criminals tried to break in. If you're targeting someone, you probably at least have an idea of who should be inside and whether they just stepped out of the vehicle or stepped in. I doubt the vehicle literally said Biden or "Biden's family inside" so I doubt it was a group of people walking around, and taking the opportunity to attack Biden or his family. In addition, the article indicates that car jacking have increased 40% in the area, so it really seems like it was a random car jacking.

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.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I kind of think the bigger story is, why were Secret Service shooting at suspects trying to enter an empty vehicle?

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, isn't law enforcement taught to shoot first and then maybe ask questions later?

[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago

No no no, you're thinking of the Army. The police are trained to shoot first, cover up the shooting, find/make up past crime the victim did to justify the shooting, get acquitted by a grand jury, and receive a full pension later.

[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

No. There's, generally speaking, rules if engagement.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why did they shoot at someone trying to enter an empty vehicle?

Maybe from a security perspective the position is that they assume anyone trying to get into a vehicle they are protecting is intending to harm the occupants, even if the occupants are not in the vehicle and the perps don’t know that.

[–] Kellamity@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No but thats still, you're not protecting anyone you're just shooting

I don’t disagree. However, I’m not the SS.

[–] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

They were probably pointing their guns at them and one of them turned around to face them way too quickly.