Shots Fired At US Capitol 608
skade88 writes with a report that "The United States Capitol has been put on lockdown after shots were fired. Reports indicate a policeman was injured." From the story: "The FBI was responding to the unconfirmed reports of shots, and a helicopter landed in front of the Capitol. A message from the Capitol Police ordered anyone in a House office to 'shelter in place.'
'Close, lock and stay away from external doors and windows,' the message said." Doubtless more to come on this; watch this space for updates. Update: 10/03 19:08 GMT by T : ABC News reports that the shots followed an attempt to ram the White House gates; the police subsequently shot and killed the driver. Other than that the driver was a woman, the reports adds little detail. Update: 10/03 19:19 GMT by T : Reuters' U.S. Politics Live feed is currently collating many reports from the scene. Of note: the lockdown itself was brief, and has been lifted.
So the guards are still getting paid? :) (Score:2)
n/t
Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe I'm wrong, but usa.gov says:
Hundreds of thousands of Federal employees including many charged with protecting us from terrorist threats, defending our borders, inspecting our food, and keeping our skies safe will work without pay until the shutdown ends.
Ok, that seems not to include the armed forces, but it does say people are working without pay.
Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing different at all
You change your pay schedule. By weeks. See if it doesn't fuck with your bills that don't change.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Guess what? Most federal employees don't get paid monthly.
Not only "most Federal employees" but by far most people in the country aren't paid monthly. Seems like virtually everyone is biweekly with some paid weekly and a VERY small minority paid monthly.
Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Voters usually have a lot more than two choices. It's just that the choice they usually make is "Ignore everything but the very last vote, and usually ignore that too." That's
Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) (Score:5, Insightful)
That's actually too generous.
The real issue is that voters don't actually pick their candidates anymore; its the other way around. Every 10 years when the census is done, all the states have to redraw their congressional districts. What happens in most states is that whoever controls the state legislature gets to do the drawing. They get maps and their state's entire voter registration database out, and make a modern computer-aided science of drawing things so that as many districts as possible are packed full of their party's registered voters. Any districts that have to go to the other party are drawn to look like malaria germs so that they scoop up every voter possible from the other party. Ideally those opposition districts will have more voters in them too. The idea is to give voters from the other party as little voice in government as possible.
In other words, nearly every voting district in the country is designed to be a "Democratic" district or a "Republican" district. The only true election happens on primary day, and nobody from the other side of the political spectrum gets a vote. So you end up with a Congress packed full of extremists. Extremist congressmen don't give a damn which party won or lost the last election, because their own seat is safe either way. All they have to worry about is that someone more extreme than them will challenge them in the next primary.
TL;DR: elections don't matter
Re: (Score:3)
Youre in a country of 300 million. Perhaps the decision to have states with separate laws was a really good idea, if you feel like the federal government isnt representing your needs well. Heres a thought, maybe we could stop making everything a federal issue and the quality of the president wouldnt be so life-and-death?
Re: (Score:3)
If the makeup of Congress matched the actual votes cast during the last election, this wouldn't be happening. The Democrats got 1.7 million more votes than the Republicans across the country, but because of gerrymandering*, they got 33 fewer seats [wikipedia.org]. Actually, if the Republicans weren't also enforcing an anti-democratic rule that only laws that most of the Repbulican party supports can even be voted on at all, this wouldn't be happening either.
Most americans aren't actually getting the government they voted
Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) (Score:5, Insightful)
You can be opposed to Obamacare and still want socialized medicine. Forcing someone to make a private purchase or pay an exorbitant penalty is a much bigger trampling on rights than just having taxpayer-funded healthcare. It's true that this isn't the majority Republican reason for being opposed. But it's a good reason that a lot of Democrats should have been opposed.
SEC Suspicious Package (Score:3)
Earlier today two entrances to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in downtown Washington, D.C. were closed due to a "suspicious package".
Isn't it empty? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's probably just some responsible gun owner assuming that since the government has shut down the capitol should be empty and therefore would be the ideal place for a shooting range since there should be no chance of hitting anyone.
Seriously though, $10 says it's a U.S. citizen unhappy with D.C. dysfunction. The terrorists wouldn't waste their bullets. They're home watching CSPAN with a bowl of popcorn and thinking "Mission Accomplished".
Re:Isn't it empty? (Score:5, Informative)
1) It's a woman.
2) This started with her ramming her car into the White House gate. Then there was the car chase down in the general direction of the Capitol Building.
3) Shots were fired. Doesn't say whether she shot first or the police did. Given the ramming the gate of the White House and the car chase, could have gone either way.
4) She was shot, one police officer was "injured". Not sure whether that means he was shot or not.
Re:Isn't it empty? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
We can't allow facts to get in the way of restricting freedom.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) It's a woman.
2) This started with her ramming her car into the White House gate. Then there was the car chase down in the general direction of the Capitol Building.
3) Shots were fired. Doesn't say whether she shot first or the police did. Given the ramming the gate of the White House and the car chase, could have gone either way.
4) She was shot, one police officer was "injured". Not sure whether that means he was shot or not.
I'm sure that it was disheartening to the media that it wasn't a right-wing white male militia type they've been waiting for.
Re:Isn't it empty? (Score:4, Funny)
4) She was shot, one police officer was "injured". Not sure whether that means he was shot or not.
Probably choked on his doughnut.
Re:Isn't it empty? (Score:5, Funny)
A disgruntled U.S. citizen shooting at the capitol is a terrorist.
So you're saying someone who is exercising his or her freedom of expression AND second amendment rights at the same time is a terrorist? You're... un-American!
Re: (Score:3)
I would say that an act like this is not terrorism if it does not attempt to push a significant agenda. Random violence, even if against politicians, isn't terrorist (which doesn't make it any better). And even if non-random, if the assailant was furloughed and pissed off about not getting paid, that's more a personal revenge-motive than a political motive -- yes, the furlough was political, but if this was a private corporation that put employees on unpaid leave you could imagine something similar. I do
Re:Isn't it empty? (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
A terrorist is someone who acts to frighten the public at large, often with the aim to incite political pressure on the government to stop doing whatever it is they do to which the terrorist objects.
A citizen shooting at their government is not a terrorist, but rather a rebel.
Re:Isn't it empty? (Score:4, Insightful)
A disgruntled U.S. citizen shooting at the capitol is a terrorist.
That is a real stretch of the definition of a terrorist. A proper definition of a terrorist would more properly be a group of individuals organized in a para-military or military organization with the express purpose to cause a military revolution or achieve some other political objective through the use of military force. Also noting that in almost every case what you call a terrorist is usually acting with the support (especially financial support) of some sovereign government... usually (but not limited to) governments other than the government currently running the territory where the terrorist is operating.
America has sponsored many terrorist groups over the years, and still continues to do so.
A stupid thug committing an ordinary crime is most definitely not a terrorist, and neither is a disgruntled citizen.
Re: (Score:3)
Webster's defines terrorism as, "Using fear and the threat of violence to coerce people into certain behaviors."
Going by the actual definition, there is no terrorist organization larger or more powerful than the U.S. Federal government.
Re:Isn't it empty? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fox news comments (Score:5, Funny)
Holy shit, look at people's comments on the fox news article:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/03/us-capitol-in-lockdown-reports-shots-fired/#
Re: (Score:3)
I like how every time a new comment is posted it scrolls, so I can't actually ready anything.
No. The best part is how I couldn't see them with NotScript. Then when I enabled two domains for scripting, it revealed a couple dozen more domains that wanted to script, and I still couldn't see any comments.
Ths important question is (Score:2)
What color code do we use for this crisis?
Only two days of government shutdown ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And Suddenly! (Score:4, Funny)
What do you want to do, [playerName] ?
[1] Ad-hominem attack against another American political party
[2] Retreat to echo chamber of own political affiliation
[3] Accuse other of racism or communism [2 Special skill points]
[*] Find common ground [Skillset not yet unlocked: need maturity level 5]
Overreaction to road rage (Score:5, Insightful)
It's starting to look like this: Some woman in an ordinary sedan tried to ram the White House gates. (Which wasn't going to do much; those gates were upgraded decades ago to stop much heavier vehicles.) Then the car went down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol area. Some Capitol Police officer may have been run down. Shots were fired, probably by cops. Others heard the shots and hit the panic button.
Time for everyone on Capitol Hill to get back to work.
Re:Overreaction to road rage (Score:5, Funny)
Time for everyone on Capitol Hill to get back to work.
Umm...yeah...Well, about that ...
orly? (Score:3)
STOP THE PRESSES! (Score:3)
There's been GUN VIOLENCE in the District of Columbia!
Michelle Bachman finally snapped? (Score:5, Funny)
Automatic barriers (Score:5, Funny)
I got a kick out of the ABC article description of cops and secret service vehicles wrecking on those automatic barriers they've placed around DC. It sounds like the perp's vehicle made it over the barrier, triggering it to pop up just in time to disable the pursuing cops. Good thinking there.
Murder (Score:5, Insightful)
So, given the choice between disabling the car, boxing her in and arresting her or just shooting her, they shot her. How the fuck is that ok? That's called murder where I come from.
Re:Murder (Score:5, Insightful)
The US government likes to murder. It does it all the time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about anyone else, but I found it very disturbing when police shoot an unarmed woman with child (okay, you could consider she was armed with her car) and the response of the people who run the country is to applaud and congratulate them on the outcome. I personally cannot think of any situation in which someone shoots and kills someone else in which applause is an appropriate response. Recognition of duty, and perhaps somber soul-searching as to why it could happen is warranted, but applauding
Re:Funny how different news outlets react (Score:4, Insightful)
So you are saying that Fox is presenting serious news about issues that will actually affect millions of Americans while everyone else is focusing on pushing hyped-up violence to get eyeballs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Funny how different news outlets react (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
What news? That Washington DC has a bunch of criminals (other than members of Congress, their staff, and lobbyists trying to influence all of the above) who shoot up people? It isn't exactly news that Washington DC is also the leading city in America for gun violence.
From all that can be seen, this is just another stupid street punk that just happened to choose a lousy place to have a high speed car chase in what might be a stolen vehicle. Again, besides the sheer location, is this something that even de
Re: (Score:2)
Fox Snooze was just waiting for Ted Nugent to get back to them first with what they should say about it.
Re: (Score:2)
CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and the BBC all have big, front page pictures and caption for this story.
Do they have a throbbing AR-15 silhouette against a spattered blood background up yet?
Re: (Score:3)
Once the dust settles it will be amusing to see that all the shots were fired by police.
Re:Funny how different news outlets react (Score:5, Insightful)
And, with it looking more and more like the police got overexcited and gunned down an unarmed woman, it's looking more and more like Fox was right to not play this as a "big front page pictures and caption for this story"....
Re: (Score:3)
I have the screenshot as proof. Or do facts not fit in your world view?
Re:Funny how different news outlets react (Score:4, Funny)
What else would you expect?
Fox news comments make it really clear who visits that site.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Yahoo News's comments are/were the same way.
Re: Funny how different news outlets react (Score:3, Funny)
11:05, on fox.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Zombies. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You think congress would furlough itself, or at least go without pay until other federal employees start getting paid again? Get real.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, they refuse to go with health insurance provided by ACA (obamacare), it isn't good enough to satisfy them. Really.
Also, they get automatic raises every year, but I think most people are aware of that.
Re:Zombies. (Score:5, Insightful)
I honestly don't care about the pay stuff. The more they get paid, the harder they are to bribe. That's fine.
But the refusal to use ACA it a structural problem. The whole damn point of the USA is that we don't have a ruling class who gets to live by a different set of rules than the peons. It's bad enough piling on law after law faster than anyone can keep up with what's legal, but when it all doesn't work out acceptably, the right answer is to change the law until you find it acceptable. Once the rulers start saying the rules don't apply to them, or their friends and donors (but I repeat myself), with a waiver here and selective enforcement there, all hope is lost.
I'd almost call that feudalism, except in feudalism tradition demanded the noble class provide a lot for the serfs - not a good deal for the serfs, but not entirely one way. We don't have that spirit today, so if we allow a ruling class to form that's above the law that applies to the commoners, it will end badly indeed.
Re:Zombies. (Score:5, Insightful)
"I honestly don't care about the pay stuff. The more they get paid, the harder they are to bribe. That's fine."
Well, first off I agree with the other poster who said it makes them not care. But I will go further: pay that is too high (and cannot be revoked) makes them also not care what other people make.
The salaries of Senators and Representatives should be tied to the median incomes of everybody in the United States. Note that is the median income, not the mean, because a relatively few, very rich people skew the mean by a long way. (The other common method of averaging, the mode, is ridiculous in this context and need not be considered.)
That will give them an actual incentive to see that the income of everyday Americans stays at a decent level. And it should also be in dollars adjusted for REAL (not the current, bogus, weasel method of calculating inflation that the government currently uses). That would remove much of the incentive to fudge the figures by inflating the dollar... as they now do.
"The whole damn point of the USA is that we don't have a ruling class who gets to live by a different set of rules than the peons."
Agreed. They should be bound by ALL the same laws as other citizens. No special privileges. The latter, yet again, just gives them motive to not care much about everybody else.
Re:Zombies. (Score:5, Informative)
you guys have got to be kidding or you've got to be really disconnected from reality.
almost *every single* member of congress is already *at least* a millionaire. No shit:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/new-congress-new-and-more-wealth.html [opensecrets.org]
and it's not like this is even a new thing. It's been this way a LOOONG time.
So if you honestly think that the salary these d-bags are pulling is anything more than tip money for the golf caddy to these guys you're living in a fantasy land.
Re:Zombies. (Score:5, Insightful)
It hasn't worked out that way. All that money and power attracts the worst types of people. Too much is never enough for them.
Re:Zombies. (Score:4, Informative)
Do you know that this issue, the requirement that congress people and staffers have to seek insurance on their own through the public exchanges, was put into the bill by the Republican Senator Grassley, who meant it as a "poison pill". To his chagrin, the House let it stand and now they're blaming the President.
It is just a right-wing meme that there is some "exemption" for congress. They get insurance the same way we do, except they are subsidized, just as they were before Obamacare was passed.
Re: (Score:3)
It does if you want to give yourself a raise without having anyone be able to say "No, stop that."
Anyone today can say "no, stop that". The congress could tomorrow vote to rescind the automatic pay raises; that would be a meaningful "no, stop that". The amendment says nothing about automatic pay raises, nor does it make them necessary.
An honest congress could vote every so often to say "after the next election for each seat, the person holding that seat will receive a raise of X". That's allowed by the amendment. Thus, QED, automatic is not necessary.
What makes automatic pay raises necessary is not t
Re:Zombies. (Score:4, Insightful)
How, exactly, would the body that needs to reach an agreement to open government, go on furlough until government reopens?
How would that work?
Re:Zombies. (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe she knew that and literally thought that nobody was home and that she could get away with a bit of looting...
Can't blame her. I imagine that the pres must have a pretty nice TV in there...
Re: (Score:3)
Suicide more likely.
Re:Zombies. (Score:5, Funny)
Or she was trying to navigate to the nearby super market with her iphone.
tragedy of errors? (Score:5, Insightful)
What if she was lost, confused and just made a wrong turn while talking on her cell phone, surprised by the barrier?
Perhaps the true price of paranoia.
Re: (Score:3)
Then that means you deserve to die according to DC police and the secret service.
Honestly, It's BS that they started shooting at her.
Re: (Score:3)
What if she was lost, confused and just made a wrong turn while talking on her cell phone, surprised by the barrier?
Yes. And there are several commonly-used drugs which can cause delirium. There's one drug used used by people who are going into areas where malaria is common, for protection against malaria. There are other drugs that cause delirium and panic. There are a few other medical reasons why somebody could be acting like that. And people just panic. That doesn't justify killing them.
About the time of the Rodney King case, I read in a magazine for police management that car chases are a big problem. Cops get into
Re:tragedy of errors? (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps she should have tried the white house instead.
Perhaps you should have tried following the news before mouthing off. She did crash into the gate to the White House, and cops went after her, chased her to the Capitol building where the car was stopped, and the cops shot her repeatedly.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe we will see most of the coverage tonight trying to paint the shooter as a supporter of one side or the other on this whole stalemate deal. Fact is, unless he managed to shoot a few legislators, it won't matter anyway who he sides with, since he's obvious nuts.
I want to know what'll happen if he's NOT Muslim. How will they spin that story?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, cmon. Is this reddit? Are we supposed to get the CCTV records and look through to try and identify the shooter?
Sure this is front page news... But why on slashdot?
Stuff that matters.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, sometimes I look at comments on FoxNews just for fun. Something like this will probably have a good cross-section of commenters claiming:
A) Black helicopters were spotted in the area beforehand ...and this is why we need to get rid of government and taxes.
B) Barack Husein Obama staged the whole thing himself for sympathy, no doubt using his Muslim Atheist friends
C)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this matters, and frankly I prefer to discuss this sort of thing with my fellow slashdotters.
Why? Not why do you prefer, but why at all?
This isn't a technical issue where debate can come to a good understanding of a problem, or resolve some issue for someone who has a question. The only possible outcome from discussing this here is the inevitable flame war when it turns political. Each side will score points for their side, leaving the people in the middle wondering why this kind of stuff is relevant to techies in general and why does it always devolve into flames and insults.
Who done it and why isn't the topic for a debate. Who done it won't change if someone makes a really good point about reaction of the suppressed masses or creates a fictional similarity to some other even at some other time. Why it was done won't change, only points will be scored by the "Republicans drove her to it" (she drove herself, pun intended) or "racism" or "tea party this or that" sides as they award themselves points for one-upmanship.
In truth, this event has very little impact on techies per se, even if a few care a lot because they live in their parent's basement which is next door to the White House. We've lost the concept that every topic isn't technical in nature just because someone who is technically inclined finds it interesting. I'm sure that some ./ers knit, but that doesn't make the latest news about knitting either "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters (to nerds)."
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
All you have said is very true. Except on the fact it is not an inevitability for it to turn into a flame war. Your very post has showed it. You managed to formulate a level-headed opinion about why the discussion is pointless because most discussion would center around irrelevant information. Of course, it ignored the fact that people have this desire to know those very pieces of irrelevant information -- although, thinking better about it, maybe knowing about it would help us learn about it and avoid the loss of life in the future? Nah, who am I kidding. We only care about it to have something to talk about when there is nothing else to talk about, in order to avoid silence. It'll soon be mostly forgotten by most, who will never think about it again unless somebody else mentions it.
Now, to be honest. Shots fired at US capitol? That's news. Why would it ever reach a political flame war is beyond me (if I assume, of course, that we always behave rationally), since Shots fired at US capitol has little to do with politics beyond what drove the whoever to do whatever (in this case try to ram the door, me thinks). And if we are going to discuss the cause of the behaviour, there is little to discuss in politics: the reasons do not need to be grounded in reason, and debating the merits of the reasons as valid politics is a jump too far from topic, bordering going off-topic which is shoots fired.
But then again, you can talk about cheese, reach cheese production, regulations on cheese productions, how hard those regulations make it for new small players to enter the market, and suddenly you are talking about politics again. Which teaches us that nothing is apolitical, unless you are talking about the laws of the world. And that's because they just are, no matter how much you argue they are unfair/against your preference.
Re: (Score:3)
Except on the fact it is not an inevitability for it to turn into a flame war.
Oh, come on. If you've read /. for more than a month you've seen it happen more than once. At this point, it's like predicting that the sun will come up in the east tomorrow morning sometime around sunrise. Or that dropping a hammer on your foot will hurt because gravity sucks.
Of course, it ignored the fact that people have this desire to know those very pieces of irrelevant information --
Nope, didn't ignore that at all. For those folks there are the news websites. All the information you'll get here will be either blatant supposition ("It was probably a teapublican..." one commenter says) or second hand ("over on CN
Re: (Score:3)
Step aside child, you are not yet courageous enough to brave the Flame War, nor logical enough not to click the link if you don't want to read it, nor smart enough to utilize the filter options... When you've grown up, experienced the world, learned to take the good amidst the bad, then your voice will be more valuable.
Re: (Score:3)
Because this matters, and frankly I prefer to discuss this sort of thing with my fellow slashdotters...
It had NOTHING to do with the current budget situation. But it matters... So we are to discuss every cop shootout on the front page?
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, lighten up. Would you rather be discussing a story on Oracle's latest earnings report, or a Slashvertisement for some new "revolutionary" piece of tech that's never going to materialize?
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, lighten up. Would you rather be discussing a story on Oracle's latest earnings report, or a Slashvertisement for some new "revolutionary" piece of tech that's never going to materialize?
You have a point.
Carry on...
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because this matters
No, it doesn't. Just because some looney decided to ram the gates of the White House and get herself killed doesn't mean that there is something to discuss. There is no political meaning, no background story, it isn't even funny. Even if there is a deeper cause behind all this it will get covered up and we will never learn of it, unless some deepthroat/whistleblower decides to enlighten us, in which case it will become interesting. For the time being, however, there is nothing to discuss, move along.
Having said that, this is why I love reading the news (online and in print) instead of watching them on TV: one can skim over the headlines and only read the interesting bits. So the GP also didn't have a point.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
My honest (and exceedingly cynical) answer: because the government will latch onto any event like this to further curtail what the rest of us are allowed to do under the guise of security, and it will have a run-on effect in other areas.
My best guess, they'll push back the secure area around the White House, and even more of DC (or anything even close to a government building) will be under lock down more often, and they'll give themselves heightened powers to stop things like this.
Give it a little while, and there will be new secret regulations saying they can stop and detain anybody in a car to question them to be sure they don't plan on trying something like this.
It sounds very tinfoil hat, but I've started to conclude that the most paranoid/cynical interpretation tends to come true over time.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget all the extra communication monitoring the will be necessary now.
If the woman was a muslim immigrant or visitor, that will provide an excuse to harass and violate the rights of our new favorite category for discrimination.
If the woman was a white suburban soccer mom, that will prove that the Feds need to monitor everyone, not just select a group for special discrimination.
If she was religious or political, it will provide an excuse to monitor religious groups or activists even more.
If poor, inf
Re: (Score:3)
Because all the other news outlets are whoring for eyeballs, why not Slashdot?
Re:Really? (Score:4, Funny)
no worries, she was proably using apple maps and followed the directions a little too closely
Re: (Score:2)
Hirez or STFU. Where's the link?
Re: (Score:3)
What an amazing coincidence that shots were fired at the exact same time in both the Capitol and the capital! Who knew?
Re:It's about time. (Score:5, Informative)
CIA employees have been furloughed. 70% of CIA analysts have been furloughed. [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It wouldn't do any good unless the staffers and lobbyists join them. Get rid of one corrupt congresscritter (but I repeat myself) and another one will just sprout up. You always have to get to the roots.
Re: (Score:3)
So you think that after successfully shutting down the government, they now want t
Re:That is what you get... (Score:5, Informative)
It's looking more and more like all the shots fired were by the Police...
Re:That is what you get... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's looking more and more like all the shots fired were by the Police...
It is looking even more like:
1) a distraced mother with a baby in the backseat took a wrong turn driving in DC
2) accidentally ran into some low-visibility short-height pole barriers
(see this view on google streetview [google.com])
3) was confronted by plain-clothes police brandishing firearms
4) was scared shitless for herself and her baby and took off
5) was chased for a while until she got out of the car
6) was shot dead
To me, this looks like a case of cops who have been militarized to the point of neglecting training on de-escalation. Hyped to believe that terrorists are hiding under every rock, they over-reacted when they should have realized that it was just the far more likely scenario of a regular citizen finding herself in an unfamiliar and threatening situation.
Re: (Score:3)
What would you like the cops to do when, after drawing weapons and ordering a suspect to get out, they instead spin their wheels and drive off?
You do understand that the reports are that she did eventually stop, did exit the vehicle and then was shot. How do you reconcile that with the above?
Have you run the numbers on that?
Yes I have. There have been precisely zero attempted attacks there - ok there was a crazy guy who tried to climb the fence a few years back, but he was just crazy not malicious. That makes pretty much every other scenario more likely. However, I do find your hyper-specific categorization disingenuous to the point of being intellectually dishonest.