• enki@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Are we not acknowledging that an agent opened fire on people for breaking into a vehicle? There’s no danger to anyone’s life yet a Secret Service agent just opens fire in public where, based on the article, there were likely hundreds of other citizens around shopping.

    • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      By itself, you are absolutely correct. It’s a property crime and nothing more. When local cops shoot these people, you are right to be upset.

      But the secret service (etc) deals in situations where these things may not be isolated. It’s easy to imagine a scenario where step 1 is to isolate/strand the target, while step 2 is much more sinister. Part of their standard operations is going to be ensuring they always have an exit strategy, should the need arise.

      Beyond that, there is also the very real danger of terrorism. In this case, it seems that the would-be thieves had no idea who they were targeting. But there are plenty of people who could’ve been following them, waiting for an opportunity.

      Also, you’re making a very bold assumption about how many potential bystanders there were. I don’t know the area where it happened, but very little of my shopping has more than a handful of people at a time anywhere near my vehicle.

      • enki@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bullets, even from small handguns, travel a very long distance very fast until they hit something. This is exceptionally negligent. It doesn’t matter how many bystanders there were. The most common round used in handguns is a 9mm, and it travels at upwards of 1300 feet per second and can travel for miles. No one’s life was in immediate danger, there was no reason to discharge a firearm in public. I’ve owned guns all my life and it’s negligent things like this that make responsible owners and competent police look bad.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Breaking into a vehicle being guarded by the Secret Service is absolutely a threat to would-be occupants.

      Bombs, tracking devices, exotic methods, even just searching the car is all a tangible threat to the occupant

      • enki@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        But their charge was WITH them. There was no immediate danger. If you’re worried about the vehicle being tampered with, you call in another one. You don’t open fire in the vicinity of a market on a Sunday. Unless something inside that vehicle is a matter of national security or someone was in it, there is zero justification for opening fire. I say this as a lifelong gun owner, this is exceptionally negligent. You do not discharge your weapon at someone, especially in public, unless there are lives in danger, especially in a populated area where you do not know who or what are further down range.