• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Shots fired on Capitol Hill

Look what she did to the police car. Intentionally. With a fucking child in the car.

capitol-hill-shooting_0.jpg
 
Imagine if she had managed to actually hit someone as she was driving around like a maniac, let alone someone important at the Capitol. Same people freaking out that they had to use lethal force probably would be second-guessing why law enforcement wouldn't use lethal force to stop her.
 
Completely justified. There is no room to play cautious around the WH and Capitol. None.
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
Look what she did to the police car. Intentionally. With a fucking child in the car.

capitol-hill-shooting_0.jpg
Click to expand...

To be fair, she didn't do that, a barricade did. That car was nowhere near her car.

Could they have refrained from killing her? Sure. In hindsight she had no weapon and no bomb and she was just a nut with a kid in the car.

If she's like the guy from two weeks ago? She steps out of her car and guns down 5 police officers and a few civilians before being shot to death.

When you attempt to run over policemen in front of the damn White House, then you don't stop while flying toward the Capitol as they chase and shoot at you - you have forfeited your life. End of story.
 
bigdoublezero said:
Imagine if she had managed to actually hit someone as she was driving around like a maniac, let alone someone important at the Capitol. Same people freaking out that they had to use lethal force probably would be second-guessing why law enforcement wouldn't use lethal force to stop her.
Click to expand...

I understand all that and I agree that she was out of control, in a bad place (near the capital and the white house), and had (apparently) tried to run over cops and get away. I get all that. I think they were justified in using deadly force to stop her. My point is - they had already stopped her. She was no longer a threat, the best I can tell. Why shoot her at that point? Does the justification for using deadly force carry over once you have the suspect cornered and they are no longer a threat?
 
scooter84 said:
I understand all that and I agree that she was out of control, in a bad place (near the capital and the white house), and had (apparently) tried to run over cops and get away. I get all that. I think they were justified in using deadly force to stop her. My point is - they had already stopped her. She was no longer a threat, the best I can tell. Why shoot her at that point? Does the justification for using deadly force carry over once you have the suspect cornered and they are no longer a threat?
Click to expand...

Have you watched the videos? They had her stopped and surrounded a bunch of times. Each time she peeled away, nearly taking out the cops with her car. They gave her multiple chances to act like a rational person. As long as she's in the car, she's a threat. How are the cops supposed to know she wasn't armed or what her motivations were or whether she was part of some larger plot or what have you?
 
bigdoublezero said:
Imagine if she had managed to actually hit someone as she was driving around like a maniac, let alone someone important at the Capitol. Same people freaking out that they had to use lethal force probably would be second-guessing why law enforcement wouldn't use lethal force to stop her.
Click to expand...

But she did manage to run over someone, an officer of the law in fact.
 
ONW said:
But she did manage to run over someone, an officer of the law in fact.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're going to be all technical she did "hit" someone. She did not "run over" someone. What I meant is if she had seriously injured or killed someone with the car, which she did not.

Not sure why you're picking that nit, but whatever.
 
scooter84 said:
I understand all that and I agree that she was out of control, in a bad place (near the capital and the white house), and had (apparently) tried to run over cops and get away. I get all that. I think they were justified in using deadly force to stop her. My point is - they had already stopped her. She was no longer a threat, the best I can tell. Why shoot her at that point? Does the justification for using deadly force carry over once you have the suspect cornered and they are no longer a threat?
Click to expand...

They were standing their ground?
 
bigdoublezero said:
Well, if you're going to be all technical she did "hit" someone. She did not "run over" someone. What I meant is if she had seriously injured or killed someone with the car, which she did not.

Not sure why you're picking that nit, but whatever.
Click to expand...

And how in the hell would the other police know the extent of their friends' injuries who just got "hit" by a car. If you want to call hitting someone with a car a "nit" so be it.
 
bigdoublezero said:
Have you watched the videos? They had her stopped and surrounded a bunch of times. Each time she peeled away, nearly taking out the cops with her car. They gave her multiple chances to act like a rational person. As long as she's in the car, she's a threat. How are the cops supposed to know she wasn't armed or what her motivations were or whether she was part of some larger plot or what have you?
Click to expand...

I agree with the bolded part but if as you say they had already stopped and surrounded her a bunch of times and the car didn't blow up some of them probably had an idea they were dealing with a crazy person and not a terrorist. Also, some of them had to know there was a baby in the car. Not saying they weren't justified in the use of force, but why not just shoot out her tires- if they had already stopped her plenty of times they had plenty of chances to do that?
 
ONW said:
And how in the hell would the other police know the extent of their friends' injuries who just got "hit" by a car. If you want to call hitting someone with a car a "nit" so be it.
Click to expand...

Hopefully our law enforcement shot her because she was a danger to the public and our Capitol, not because she bumped their friend with a car. Did you read my posts on this thread? I think we agree on this issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
We need a better mental health system for families who are dealing with crazy family members. The help is just not there and it's left up to the police to deal with these folks. Most of the time they're taken to jail, where they will get no treatment, when they need to be in a mental health facility where they can get some help.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
I agree with the bolded part but if as you say they had already stopped and surrounded her a bunch of times and the car didn't blow up some of them probably had an idea they were dealing with a crazy person and not a terrorist. Also, some of them had to know there was a baby in the car. Not saying they weren't justified in the use of force, but why not just shoot out her tires- if they had already stopped her plenty of times they had plenty of chances to do that?
Click to expand...

I mean, what if grandma had balls? All of this happened quite quickly. Maybe they saw the baby, maybe they didn't. Maybe they had enough time to deduce that she had no weapons inside the car. Maybe they didn't.

Bottom line is she was a legitimate threat out there even if she wasn't armed or had a nefarious motive and needed to be put down.
 
bigdoublezero said:
Hopefully our law enforcement shot her because she was a danger to the public and our Capitol, not because she bumped their friend with a car. Did you read my posts on this thread? I think we agree on this issue.
Click to expand...

I am misreading them. My bad.
 
bigdoublezero said:
Bottom line is she was a legitimate threat out there even if she wasn't armed or had a nefarious motive and needed to be put down.
Click to expand...

I think they were probably justified in killing her, though given what we now know I don't think she was a threat that "needed to be put down". But of course this is based on what we now know. Given the area I'm sure many of them were thinking "car bomb".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top