I was just reading that in 1980 and 1995 amendments the president did not want were added to debt ceiling legislation that became law. So... Democrat presidents have a history or being rolled this way?
I really hope there is a lot more to this car-as-weapon story. It feels really, really weird that the response to dangerous driving is shooting to kill. This is a serious question: are there not anti-car or anti-traffic measures around the White House to stop someone ramming a vehicle into a building? Are those measures really only there to halt the driver until they can be shot?
"Driving a black sedan, the 34-year-old woman rammed security barricades "at the very outer perimeter of the White House,""
"law enforcement sources said the suspect did not shoot a gun and there is no indication that she had one."
So after the security measures worked perfectly, and without any indication the driver was armed... a single police officer decided she had to die? This is like the dictionary definition of "shoot first, ask questions later". As a non-American, I find this story absolutely horrific. What I find just as horrific is that no new sources yet find anything about this story horrific. And now she is dead, it's unlikely we'll ever know the full story.
Can't wait to find out that she is the wife of one of the agents and was just bringing him lunch.
Edit: after the chase she got out of her car and was shot. It took a while to identify her because of her injuries? What did they shoot her with and where did they hit her?
The woman driving the car is only half the story. What about more info on the police officer who shot her in the head? Why are there no quotes like "He seemed such a nice guy, I never thought he would be the kind of person to shoot someone in the head."
From what I've gathered so far, a woman "used her car as a weapon" and then she got out of her weapon. Then with no sign of having any other weapon, she was shot in the head.
First thought: in the center of political power, a single unarmed woman is so dangerous she must be shot in the head? Really? I don't want to come off as sexist, but what could a single unarmed woman do to threaten a group of police officers?
Second thought: what option did this woman have? Could she have possibly lived through this? If using a car as a weapon is enough to be shot at, when she is no longer "safe" in her car and she can no longer use her car as a weapon, did she expect to be shot in the head?
Third thought (for future incidents): after an initial incident (whatever the cause) what options are left to anyone in the future? If you stay surrounded by police officers, you could be shot in the head. If you try to drive away, you'll be shot at while in your car. If you hurt a police officer, are you then considered so dangerous you need to be shot?
What if you hurt a police officer by accident? Are you now a legitimate target for head shooting? If so, I totally understand anyone who tries to escape in their car.
Random thoughts, of course, but I feel like I'm the crazy one for nobody in the press being even remotely concerned about this.
All of the more recent stories make it clear in the first sentence or two that she has "a history of mental illness", which could mean almost anything.
She was also black, so that's almost justification in and of itself for shooting her in the minds of a lot of Americans.
We really are a banana republic with a budget, here. People just don't know it yet.
Ok guys why don't you wait till the investigation is complete before you completely rush to judgement. There will be a look into the use of force in this situation.
I'm not rushing to judgement about it, I'm just baffled by the news reporting. I don't understand how the headlines aren't "Police officer shoots unarmed woman in the head" instead of "Car chase and shooting in Washington DC". Both are, despite any possible motives on either side, true, as any investigation will show. Unfortunately, no investigation will really get the bottom of WHY she did what she did, for the simple reason that the main witness was shot in the head!
Cremlian, speaking for myself, it's because we've been down this road before and a healthy dose of skepticism regarding the veracity and diligence of any investigation into police wrongdoing, or especially any wrongdoing on the part of the secret service, seems well justified given the history of similar issues.
Cops literally get away with murder in this country. Many times a year, at a minimum. The weasel language already being pushed in the press regarding this woman is an attempt to convict her in the court of public opinion long before a comprehensive accounting of the facts can even take place.
I learned about Alhurrah because of this, which is a US govt funded news organization that broadcasts in the Middle East. They supplied all the other news orgs with that vid of the car chase. The interesting thing is that I think this is the first time ever that directly US govt funded news content has been broadcast in the US; the law allowing govt funded news to supply regular US news with content was passed just last year. They still can't make specific content for the US or have a US channel, but I wonder how often we'll see govt created news content now, and how it will be used or received.
So police officers took shots at the car (mind you just a car not a tank) knowing there was a toddler in the back seat?!?
When has shooting at a fleeing car ever stopped that car? The only person I trust to have any expertise in this told me once that shooting the tires is balls hard and almost never works.
Some CNN anchor was commentating the video when everything was first going down and when it was at the point of the video where the car hadn't taken off yet and the officers were at point blank he said something like "years of training for the discipline not to shoot." Right, then the car takes off and then they start shooting.
Here's my deal - would it have been prudent of them to shoot the tires out while it was parked and they were at point blank (ie: before the getaway)?
Comments
"Driving a black sedan, the 34-year-old woman rammed security barricades "at the very outer perimeter of the White House,""
"law enforcement sources said the suspect did not shoot a gun and there is no indication that she had one."
So after the security measures worked perfectly, and without any indication the driver was armed... a single police officer decided she had to die? This is like the dictionary definition of "shoot first, ask questions later". As a non-American, I find this story absolutely horrific. What I find just as horrific is that no new sources yet find anything about this story horrific. And now she is dead, it's unlikely we'll ever know the full story.
Edit: after the chase she got out of her car and was shot. It took a while to identify her because of her injuries? What did they shoot her with and where did they hit her?
So she's from CT... Stamford...
I joke because I don't have any rage left.
God damn I'm old.
There's just no replacement for 80s music videos. They are a unique and special thing.
The whole thing is odd.
Although it does make clear that she used the car as a weapon, striking multiple officers.
From what I've gathered so far, a woman "used her car as a weapon" and then she got out of her weapon. Then with no sign of having any other weapon, she was shot in the head.
First thought: in the center of political power, a single unarmed woman is so dangerous she must be shot in the head? Really? I don't want to come off as sexist, but what could a single unarmed woman do to threaten a group of police officers?
Second thought: what option did this woman have? Could she have possibly lived through this? If using a car as a weapon is enough to be shot at, when she is no longer "safe" in her car and she can no longer use her car as a weapon, did she expect to be shot in the head?
Third thought (for future incidents): after an initial incident (whatever the cause) what options are left to anyone in the future? If you stay surrounded by police officers, you could be shot in the head. If you try to drive away, you'll be shot at while in your car. If you hurt a police officer, are you then considered so dangerous you need to be shot?
What if you hurt a police officer by accident? Are you now a legitimate target for head shooting? If so, I totally understand anyone who tries to escape in their car.
Random thoughts, of course, but I feel like I'm the crazy one for nobody in the press being even remotely concerned about this.
She was also black, so that's almost justification in and of itself for shooting her in the minds of a lot of Americans.
We really are a banana republic with a budget, here. People just don't know it yet.
Cops literally get away with murder in this country. Many times a year, at a minimum. The weasel language already being pushed in the press regarding this woman is an attempt to convict her in the court of public opinion long before a comprehensive accounting of the facts can even take place.
When has shooting at a fleeing car ever stopped that car? The only person I trust to have any expertise in this told me once that shooting the tires is balls hard and almost never works.
It really seems like they were amped up and trigger happy, to me.
Here's my deal - would it have been prudent of them to shoot the tires out while it was parked and they were at point blank (ie: before the getaway)?