• 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

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...


Video of the cop hitting the barricade. Cop was flying when he smacked it!


Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
 
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 hate when people talk about how copes should use non-lethal shooting. If you are going to use a firearm, you need to be ready to use lethal force. Guns are a lot harder to shoot than people think. This means that 1) you shouldn't shoot unless you are in a situation where deadly force is warranted because it is too easy to miss the knee/leg/tire etc. and hit the person and kill them and 2) if it is a situation where deadly force is necessary you are shooting at the person to begin with.
 
Seriously, first, they should have used their xray vision to make sure there was no bomb in the car. Then their telepathic powers to enter the drivers mind to get her to stop and to figure out the motive for her behavior. Finally, they should have sent her into a justice system that repeatedly fails to work properly.

I don't know what they were thinking. Clearly, we need to spend billions more in federal dollars to study, research and implement changes to the current system that worked in this incident.
 
bojanglefunk said:
I hate when people talk about how copes should use non-lethal shooting. If you are going to use a firearm, you need to be ready to use lethal force. Guns are a lot harder to shoot than people think. This means that 1) you shouldn't shoot unless you are in a situation where deadly force is warranted because it is too easy to miss the knee/leg/tire etc. and hit the person and kill them and 2) if it is a situation where deadly force is necessary you are shooting at the person to begin with.
Click to expand...

Demonbeck said:
Seriously, first, they should have used their xray vision to make sure there was no bomb in the car. Then their telepathic powers to enter the drivers mind to get her to stop and to figure out the motive for her behavior. Finally, they should have sent her into a justice system that repeatedly fails to work properly.

I don't know what they were thinking. Clearly, we need to spend billions more in federal dollars to study, research and implement changes to the current system that worked in this incident.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate and agree with both premises in play here, I think it's important to consider the logical problem of extending this line of reasoning. We have to have some kind of accountability for cops and shootings. While it's hard to determine, I think it's important to draw the line between cops having every prerogative to shoot to kill, and questioning everything a police officer does. In this case, it seemed to me like there was too much at stake to really raise any questions about shooting her, but I think it's most people's natural curiosity that wishes she would have lived to hear her story.
 
bojanglefunk said:
I hate when people talk about how copes should use non-lethal shooting. If you are going to use a firearm, you need to be ready to use lethal force.
Click to expand...

This is correct. You don't use a gun to blow out a tire. You use a gun to kill someone. I don't believe the use of a gun was warranted here, but that's my opinion. Between all of the barriers around the city (see the cop car video above where the barrier pops up just as he's screaming by), spike strips, blockades and boxing her in, it shouldn't have been any problem to bring her to a stop. In fact, she did stop, before she got out of the car and was shot, based on the way I understand it happened so far.

Demonbeck said:
Seriously, first, they should have used their xray vision to make sure there was no bomb in the car.
Click to expand...

Absolute non-issue. If there was ANY fear of a bomb, they wouldn't have approached the car after they shot her without a bomb squad on hand. I haven't seen a single quote or a single picture indicating there was ever any fear of a bomb.
 
Last edited:
RacerDeac said:
Absolute non-issue. If there was ANY fear of a bomb, they wouldn't have approached the car after they shot her without a bomb squad on hand. I haven't seen a single quote or a single picture indicating there was ever any fear of a bomb.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Their first objective is to stop the vehicle. The only way they could do that was to block it in (which didn't work), disable the vehicle or disable the driver. Under the circumstances, there was no choice but to disable to driver - which had to be done at close range. A bomb threat would have been a secondary threat concern, since she was already using her vehicle as a weapon.
 
TownieDeac said:
While I appreciate and agree with both premises in play here, I think it's important to consider the logical problem of extending this line of reasoning. We have to have some kind of accountability for cops and shootings. While it's hard to determine, I think it's important to draw the line between cops having every prerogative to shoot to kill, and questioning everything a police officer does. In this case, it seemed to me like there was too much at stake to really raise any questions about shooting her, but I think it's most people's natural curiosity that wishes she would have lived to hear her story.
Click to expand...

Oh I completely agree that you have to look at why cops shoot etc. I am just saying if a gun comes into play it should only come into play when there is a reason to use lethal force on that person, not to try to shoot out tires, kneecaps etc.
 
Demonbeck said:
That's not true. Their first objective is to stop the vehicle. The only way they could do that was to block it in (which didn't work), disable the vehicle or disable the driver. Under the circumstances, there was no choice but to disable to driver - which had to be done at close range. A bomb threat would have been a secondary threat concern, since she was already using her vehicle as a weapon.
Click to expand...

The vehicle was stopped. Threat over. Instead, they shot her. So now the threat is super-duper over. And yet many people still approached the vehicle without any check of the contents of the vehicle or an inspection by a bomb squad. If there was any significant worry of a bomb, there would be pictures somewhere of the squad popping open the trunk and examining the car. Whether or not she had a bomb played nothing into the decision to blow her away after her car had already come to a stop.
 
Knight said:
There were two people who knew the situation better than anyone else here: the two secret service agents who initially stopped the woman before she panicked.
Click to expand...

You mean the ones who stopped her vehicle and talked to her and somehow still didn't recognize that she had a child in the car with her?
 
RacerDeac said:
You mean the ones who stopped her vehicle and talked to her and somehow still didn't recognize that she had a child in the car with her?
Click to expand...

Tough to get a good look in the back seat after you have been hit and thrown onto the hood. Seems like that gave a pretty clear indication of her threat level early on in the incident.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Tough to get a good look in the back seat after you have been hit and thrown onto the hood. Seems like that gave a pretty clear indication of her threat level early on in the incident.
Click to expand...

Ehh...one of the first things guards, cops, etc are taught to do when you approach a car is to scan for any threats. According to the post above, there were two SS guys there and only one seems to have been hurt. And according to reports I've read, there was some back and forth between the agents and the woman before she rammed the gate/agent. It's definitely a fail on their part for not recognizing there was a child in the car.

As for her "threat level", there are plenty of cases of cars pulling off from traffic stops and hitting the cop who has them stopped, but I don't really see that as justification for shooting the driver when they finally get the car stopped.
 
Last edited:
RacerDeac said:
Ehh...one of the first things guards, cops, etc are taught to do when you approach a car is to scan for any threats. According to the post above, there were two SS guys there and only one seems to have been hurt. And according to reports I've read, there was some back and forth between the agents and the woman before she rammed the gate/agent. It's definitely a fail on their part for not recognizing there was a child in the car.

As for her "threat level", there are plenty of cases of cars pulling off from traffic stops and hitting the cop who has them stopped, but I don't really see that as justification for shooting the driver when they finally get the car stopped.
Click to expand...

This was no routine traffic stop, so your analogy doesn't ring true. They were not approaching the car under the controlled conditions of a traffic stop. This was a car approaching a high security area (some would say one of the highest in the world), acting erratically, trying to pull a quick three point turn, ramming an officer and then speeding through red lights down a major street towards another high security area. Where the car proceed to ram another police car after it had been cornered.
 
I do not in any way fault the LEOs for what they did, regardless of whether they knew there was a kid in the car. If I ram the barricades at the White House and Capitol, ignore and warnings of the SS officers, lead the SS and Capitol Police on a high speed chase and run into one or two officers in the process, I would kind of expect to get shot. And who knows what she did or said when there were officers at door of the car when it was stopped that could have made things even worse (e.g., maybe she reached for something).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top