It's crazy to think about how far gone as a country we are.

So are we shooting reckless drivers now?

Obviously its the video games. Cops play GTAV all day learning when someone runs into cop cars, the police just get out and start shooting.

Its no surprise they tried to murder this woman...its those damn video games teaching cops to be violent.

That's a nice spin on the whole games make us violent bullshit.

you should watch the latest episode of southpark about murder porn

It is the video games, and the movies, and the television shows, and the rap music, and our entire violence-addicted culture. Add to that a ceaseless, undirected and irrational fear.

Yes you are right, unlike many who would point to specific things as being the problem (which is another aspect to the problem- lack of any further research to what TV tells them), it is everything, the whole culture. Every western nation in the world loves GTA. Not many have cops shooting at women.

I think it's pretty much just that last one.

And the pills.

Show me one study that backs that up- I've seen plenty to the contrary......American culture has always had a violent streak, from cowboys to pulp fiction to gangster glory (all those from the previous century). I agree there is a problem- dissolution of families and a poor economy are usually correlated.

To say it another way

could we make this into a meme please

[deleted]

Satire.

A fine art he has yet to acquire.

This reckless driver tried ramming into the white house property and ran over a cop in one of the most guarded cities in the US. Yeah.

Allegedly.

STOP RESISTING!

(whimper)... Yes sir. Sorry sir.

SHOTS FIRED, SHOTS FIRED!

there is video of it

So? She did not kill anyone and who cares about a wall, when a kid has just lost its mother? I'm sure she didn't get up that morning planning on doing all of this. She seemed to have panicked. Nice reason to kill.

That kid is going to grow up with a severe hatred of cops.

So will the rest of her generation.

Until they grow up and there edges fall off.

We don't really know what she was planning, but she had already committed assault with her motor vehicle, and was in the process of fleeing again. If she hit someone else, she could have killed them.

I am sorry, but in this case the police were correct to open fire.

So there is a drunk driver drunk out of his gourd and he is continuing down the road after hitting someone's car (but causing no real injuries) . . . and when the police finally stop the car and the drunk exits the vehicle the police should open fire?

Like Judge Dredd?

stop the car and the drunk exits the vehicle

Major difference in what occurred here.

How so? The media reports the police stopped the car and she exited the car and they shot her because she was attempting to "flee."

I don't think we know that she "tried" ramming the white house property. I've heard some reports that she just had an accident or lost control, and then freaked out when the cops surrounded her and fled.

The fleeing was the stupid part, but it's not a capital offense.

I really love how y'all are bending over backwards to excuse her behavior and make these cops into monsters.

Hell, its very presence on this sub is trying to put a spin to it that the police somehow created this situation on purpose.

are you justifying the execution of a citizen at the hands of police?

I am saying that this citizen (such a cold term, I know why you are using it. I prefer to refer to her as a woman.) performed actions that caused the police to need to fire on her.

Did they overreact? Maybe. Could they have taken her alive? Possibly. But we were not there, and we don't know what they were thinking. If she was a legitimate threat, then she may have had weapons or explosives. If she wasn't a legitimate threat, she was trying very hard to look like one.

She was the one endangering her own life and that of her child, not the police.

If she was a legitimate threat, then she may have had weapons or explosives

ohhhh, i see it now. Youre taking the "terrorists under the bed" stance.

It doesnt matter what she did, or how she did it. police are NOT executioners, and they were perfectly able to disable her and her vehicle without killing her. she had a child in the car, several people looking insidethe car, and were INCHES away from their tires. it doesnt matter "what they were thinking", they are equally criminal for man slaughter.

if police are able to stop a car going 80+ down the highway with no casualties and minimal damage to property, then the secret service should be able to stop a car in downtown DC.

Dont justify death by cop, it makes you look bad. we took an alleged bomber to court, we can take a black lady with a car to court.

The problem you have is that you don't trust the police to do any one individual thing right. No matter what happens...

You'll note that in the case of the alleged bomber, there was two of them. And police killed one. Not that it matters to some people here, because they think the cops framed them anyway.

The problem you have is that you don't trust the police to do any one individual thing right. No matter what happens..

dont make assumptions because it makes you look stupid. No, thats not the problem, so youre psychoanalysis of me is dead wrong. Dont brandish me as an unreasonable moron just because im advocating the use and following of the law

You'll note that in the case of the alleged bomber, there was two of them. And police killed one.

Lets assume that there is no conspiracy behind boston and it happened exactly as we were told.

The brothers were in a firefight with police. killing one, or both then, is well within the law. The 2nd brother was in a boat MUCH later was unarmed and NOT a threat, but was shot at anyways, that is NOT within the law.

see the difference? the law, perhaps you should read up on it?

Not that it matters to some people here, because they think the cops framed them anyway.

then youre in the wrong place. Perhaps my little pony sub instead, it seems to be more youre speed

Your tag is quite appropriate. But do you have something against My Little Pony?

yep, let's just call her what she was... a terrorist. I mean she definitely could have had weapons or explosives...

No, she was a delusional woman who was trying to smash into the white house because she thought the President was trying to telepathically talk to her. But they had no way of knowing that at the time.

you really buy that huh? nothing but suckers in this country...

So what's your theory?

simply excessive police force covered with a story of crazy to limit public out rage.

As it turns out- no, she didn't.

Unless you are saying that the police are straight-up lying, then yes, she did. Alhurra TV had video of the initial attempt to arrest her, and there was damage to the front bumper above the left tire. The guard she hit was at that time. She then rammed a police cruiser and fled at high rate of speed toward the Senate Office Building. Police had no way of knowing her intent, or whether she posed more of a threat than just vehicular manslaughter.

She could have had a bomb, which is what those barricades were put in place to protect against. Thankfully, it turns out that she didn't.

But judging from her actions, she knew what was going on. We just don't know why she ended up doing this.

Everybody could be dangerous, so, let's shoot everybody who acts weird?

What's wrong with shooting at the wheels?

Cops are getting more and more violent nowadays because they are not accountable for the harm and deaths they cause needlessly.

I agree that they may have been able to take her out better by shooting the wheels and not her. However, I disagree with the portrayal she is receiving as some sort of innocent party.

I'm not saying she wasnt at fault, I'm saying that police put her to death for fleeing from them.

It is police protocol: shoot to kill to protect themselves. It is way too often interpreted in the ways where unarmed people get shot.

There's acting weird and there's trying to get away with a hit and run against a secret service agent. I only have sympathy for her kid.

Hit and run is punishable by death without trial now?

Also who did she hit exactly?

Cops are getting more and more violent nowadays

How is this a bad thing when the people they have to deal with are getting more violent nowadays too?

Violence provokes violence, the key is to obey constitution and law: every person has right to live until court, not a cop, decides otherwise

Someone needs to be smart enough and not shoot unarmed troublemakers to death just to feel safe. Risk comes with the territory as well as some benefits too.

After each case like this, cops are reassured that they did everything correct, where the truth is: in this case, they just started to shoot with intent to kill, without making a reasonable judgement and attempt to demobilize vehicle instead. It is pure luck that everyone around decided to lay down and noone else got hurt.

Until cops realize that their job is to serve and protect people and not just themselves, it will spiral into more violence. They should be a moral standard for everyone, because they represent law, not be the people who is everybody afraid of and a lot - hate.

So in THIS particular case, this woman got killed because the cops "hated" her?

Does it matter that she was acting a fool in downtown DC, amidst the tightest security in the country? If there was EVER...ONE place...NOT to fuck around and act crazy and lost its DC. Im just saying.

There's another place not to fuck around I know: local gang's poker game on Thursdays

See any similarities?

I've never said cops hated her. They just weren't thinking straight and they all had guns. It came natural to shoot. And they knew it would be ok.

I just watched the Alhurra video. She was backing around trying to get between the police cars - the police all had guns drawn on her right next to her car. You make it sound like she rammed the police cars at high speed. It's all just too weird. Her actions seem more panicky than deliberate. Especially driving around the traffic circle instead of just driving off.

The initial hit, including the officer that had to go to the hospital was not on camera.

Here is what happened to the Officer who had to go to the hospital:

http://youtu.be/CokyTsprVps

He ran into a barrier at high speed all on his own. Her car is no where in sight.

that sounds convenient and also... very hard to believe... downtown DC in a restricted area and there is NO footage? No security cams, no dash-cam footage? I don't think it's that there is no footage it's that it isn't being released because it probably doesn't correlate to the official story they want the public to believe...

There was a lot of footage, what are you talking about? They simply didn't catch the initial hit.

like I said, very convenient they didn't happen to catch that part, you know the part that is the the reason for justifying their use of force.

You mean other than the reckless driving, smashing into police cars, fleeing the scene, and ramming the second barricade, all caught on camera?

are we seeing the same videos? have you actually watched them? I just see a confused scared woman who doesn't know what shes doing, not a terrorist trying to run down officers and ram her car into the white house...

Actually, reports have come in that she was an EDP who thought Barack Obama was sending telepathic messages to her.

yeah of course the reports will say something like that. They can't have police killing an innocent woman with a child, she has to be labeled as some kind of crazy to prevent public out roar.

Which officer is hit in the video? Are they saying the hit to the police car is the hit to the officer? "Assault" of a police officer is not necessarily a "battery" of a police officer, which is a touching. Assault can simply be the attempted use of force, which the police often overcharge.

The officer hit was not in the video, it was before this footage was shot. The officer in question is the one taken to the hospital.

What are the injuries? It still occurred at this scene, right? Is the officer laying on the ground or something? There are other pictures from this scene, and the video, and I don't see a downed police officer. The helicopter taking the officer to the hospital was the one that crashed his own car into a barricade (that may have 'popped up' because of the excessive speed) and had to be removed by the jaws of life. So you're saying 2 officers went to the hospital?

one of the most guarded cities in the US. Yeah.

Well, I don't have the numbers to say specifically it is the most guarded, so I qualified it.

I hear ya. I don't even have any numbers myself, but I refuse to believe anything is more protected than the White House. Maybe Fort Knox?

That is my go-to for heavily protected complexes.

and ran over a cop

This alone should've got her a medal.

That attitude is just disgusting. Even if you think police are generally corrupt, you shouldn't be applauding actions like this.

You're right. We should applaud the actions of heroic D.C. police who murdered a confused Black woman in front of her 18 month old child. Huzzah!

Have you thought about maybe taking a neutral approach? You don't like the fact that they are more likely to shoot than not in situations like this. That's fine, and a perfectly reasonable stance.

Saying that anyone deserves a medal for indiscriminately attacking a policeman is disgusting. If you honestly feel this way, then you are less than human. You are a monster.

I can only hope that you are trolling for negative reactions.

In this case, I would rather say that the police did their job in ending a potentially dangerous situation, with regrets to the family of the disturbed woman who lost her life. As for her death, I attribute it to her mental illness, and not the police action.

Her death was due to a hail of gunfire from gun-happy police. Shoot the tires. Shoot the engine block. Lay out spikes. Vehicle barricade.

Nahh, let's shoot the unarmed Black woman. Yeah, I'm the monster.

this alone should have gotten her a medal

Yeah. You are.

Here is the comment of what is probably a DC area police officer, explaining why they wouldn't have simply shot out her tires or attempted to incapacitate her via wounding.

I'll explain from the perspective from the other side of the gun.

Officers are NOT trained to "shoot out tires" We are specifically told to never, ever try and shoot out someones tires. There's two major reasons why.

A) discharging our firearm is permitted only to control a "deadly force threat" (imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to ourselves or others). If we shoot at someone, it better be because we reasonably believe that the subject WILL kill/hurt someone if we fail to act. We are trained to shoot until the threat is controlled. For us, that typically means shooting at a person's center of mass. why? You ask? Because center of mass is the largest target, meaning we are more likely to score a hit and most likely to stop that subjects deadly force threat the quickest. We cannot "shoot to wound",because, a wounded subject is still capable of killing or harming you or someone else. Shooting to wound is using "pain compliance" to establish control....but we are using a lethal force control option. WE are using a level of force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, to address a threat that we feel can be managed through non-lethal means. The very act of using a firearm to "wound", negates your justification for using that level of force. We use lethal force to "stop" a deadly force threat. We are trained to stop the threat in the quickest, most effective, means.

B) we are responsible for every bullet that leaves our firearms. This includes richochets. If we're shooting at someone to "stop" their deadly force threat, and a bullet misses and injures a bystander, we are only responsible for the failure to make sure all our shots hit the correct target (whether that is because of a lack of range training, or improper equipment, whatever). Referencing my first point, if we shoot to "injure" their car....well we aren't stopping the threat. A flat tire doesn't stop a car, it doesn't make the driver less capable of getting out and opening fire. We would be using lethal force to control a resistance that we de facto aknowledge can be met with less lethal control. So NOW, that stray bullet or that richochet, has injured or killed an innocent bystander...when we had NO justification for using it in the first place. That's why we have things like tire strips..or tazers. Those are ways for us to flatten tires...or stop a threat, that are not "lethal force". Our failure to have access to less lethal control options is not justification for excessive force.

It is sad what happened to this woman. But honestly, you feel that her behavior was excusable? How was anything about what she did before, during, and after this video reasonable? Reasonable people do not drive into police barricades and strike officers trying to stop them. Reasonable people do not lead police on vehicle pursuits. Reasonable people do not ram police cars blocking them.

Agreed

It got her 2 stars, I think.

2 stars and 40 pounds of lead.

i giggled like a schoolgirl at that.

Reckless drivers who try to crash through two security gates near the most protected residence on the planet.

The cop ran into the security gate. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao3617loZ0k&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAo3617loZ0k

And the cops put little evidence markers out making it seem like there was a shooting or crime or something at this location and CNN and others reported it was the woman who caused this damage to the police vehicle.

If she tried to "crash" through a concrete security gate her car would look like the police car that attempted the same feat. So "crashing" security gate # 2 didn't happen.

As to the first security gate she is accused of "ramming," or in your case "crashing through," where is the damage to her vehicle? If she was trying to gain access to the WH grounds why didn't she exit her vehicle and run through it (with her gun, or whatever she was supposed to be doing)? Why would she bring her child on this mission?

Here's my speculation about the incident: she made a wrong turn into the security roundabout (at the WH). The police probably yelled at her through a loudspeaker or something that it was a restricted area and to leave. Officers, some maybe in plain clothes, immediately come out yelling and pointing for her to leave. Instead of simply continuing on and making the roundabout turn, she tried backing up and leaving the way she came in. A police vehicle came from behind to block her exit this way. She tried going forward to leave the 'correct way' but could not make the complete turn, because her car was askew from trying to back out the way she came in, and bumped or stopped short of the poles ringing the roundabout. All those officers then descended on her pointing their weapons trying to make her exit the vehicle for questioning rather than letting her go. She panicked, backed up, maybe hitting the police car blocking her from behind, and went forward to exit the roundabout the correct way and then fled the police.

this is exactly how I imagined it... but like the title of the post says I'm just amazed at how many people eat up the official story...

Would it be so hard for the police dept to just come out and say, "hey we fucked this one up..."

[deleted]

How do you know it wasn't?

I don't. I never said it was.

You said 'try' which hints at intent.

I googled it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=unarmed+driver+shot+by+police&t=ms-android-verizon&hl=en&source=android-browser-type&v=200400000&sa=X&ei=lVJOUvrNJoWA0AWJi4C4Dw&ved=0CB0QpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A9%2F29%2F2013&tbm=

Looks like this was unfortunately business as usual here stateside. :/

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/03/1228675/-Unarmed-Couple-Shot-At-137-Times-By-Police

137 times!?!?

Oh.. shot at.. they were only shot 24 and 23 times... unless they were high on P.C.P.

Altho Roy Benadivez reportedly survived 37 gunshot, shrapnel and stab wounds and a helicopter crash whilst committing heroic wartime acts. That was his second tour too. His first tour he stepped on a landmine. I'd like to employ his doctory.

Driving through a security checkpoint then fleeing the scene is a bit more serious than reckless driving. Especially when you leave three injured cops behind.

So serious that you deserve to be shot to death after being surrounded by cops with guns drawn and you're exiting the vehicle with your hands up?

Where are you seeing that she was surrendering at any time?

Yes, in this case it is serious enough that I would say shooting is a justifiable way to end it. Cars are still dangerous. I dare say it's easier to kill someone with a car than with a gun.

That aside, she was already somewhere she was not supposed to be, and she'd already hurt others. They didn't know why she was there, or what her intent was. All they know is that she ran a security checkpoint, hit a cop with her car, then tried to plow through a barricade where she hit even more cops with her car.

Off of this information alone, I'm pretty sure anyone would have assumed that her actions were intentionally malicious.

What would you have done in that position? Would you have gotten the call that a woman who ran a checkpoint in front of the capitol building, who had rammed through a police barricade when they tried to stop her, and was now speeding down Pennsylvania Avenue and thought to yourself "She's probably just driving recklessly. Better pull her over and write her a ticket." or "It's probably nothing, just a coincidence that this is all happening in front of the nation's capitol building. We'll just ride this out and see what happens."

"The driver made her way onto Constitution Avenue before eventually stopping in the 100 blocks of Maryland Avenue NE, near the Hart Senate Office Building.

Police then killed the driver after she got out of her vehicle and tried to flee." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/03/uscapitol-lockdown/2916679/

So now I guess the apologists are going to have to drop the vehicle as a deadly weapon argument and move on to 'the police feared for their lives, or the lives of others' as she "fled" on foot. Hundreds of cops in one of the busiest and most policed neighborhoods in the world couldn't collar an unarmed mother who allegedly left her child in the car as she "fled." Yeah, right. And I did see other eyewitnesses describe her being shot right upon exit from the vehicle and no foot chase, etc.

Fleeing still isn't surrendering.

Reiterating again..

This woman tried to enter a restricted area. She then hit a cop with her car when they approached her. She then was stopped by a police barricade. She then rammed through the police barricade. She then sped down Pennsylvania Avenue.

What logical person would not assume this woman was dangerous? How often do people ram through police barricades, surrounded by police with guns?

The police did not know who this woman was, but they have to assume that she was dangerous because of her actions. That's the safe route.

I didn't say she was surrendering. I was pointing out her vehicle had been stopped, she exited the vehicle, and therefore the threat had been stopped.

Who knows if she was indeed surrendering. I don't trust the self-serving claims in the media she was "fleeing" on foot though.

She was driving dangerously and it was appropriate to stop her vehicle, using appropriate force (boxing her in, shooting at her wheels in a safe manner, using spikes, etc.).

But after she exited the vehicle she should have been apprehended without lethal force. If the police aren't willing to take the risk of apprehending an unarmed woman and feel they need to shoot first then they have no business being officers.

Do you really believe it's reasonable to shoot a person suspected of reckless driving, assault, failing to obey orders, and damage to a police vehicle when they have the ability to chase her down on foot and arrest her? Even if this was a murder suspect, once the weapon was neutralized, the police have an obligation to arrest the suspect and not kill the suspect.

Hmm.. Yeah, you have a point about the weapon being neutralized...

I'm thinking along the lines of combat, where a fleeing enemy is still an enemy.

Cops, though.. They aren't in a war zone and really shouldn't think along those lines. I mean, I'm sure it would be safer for them to think along those lines, but it does no good for a civil authority to believe they're in a war zone.

Thank you.

For some truth in advertising they should put up big red warning signs with skull and crossbones saying something like:

"WARNING: you are entering a Constitution free zone similar to a war zone. Failure to heed orders will result in LETHAL FORCE."

What's sad is there are lots of people that work and visit there (even homeless people that live there) and despite all the police I used to like how open it felt--almost like a regular neighborhood. I used to work right there on Freedom Plaza. I remember people playing roller hockey games not far from where she was shot. Poor guy that has to go retrieve the hockey puck if it ends up being hit into a "restricted zone."

Hell, wasn't the guy that fired an "assault rifle" at the white house during Clinton's term tackled rather than shot?

I dare say it's easier to kill someone with a car than with a gun.

Oh, ok. Pull all the guns from the troops guys! Arm them all with Dodge Neons. That'll win the war.

I would have shot her tires out. You can see in the video of her driving around the turnabouts that they just open fire on her.

I mean, is it protocol to shoot dead a suspect that is running from the police?

Okay, war fighting and murdering someone are two different things technique wise. If our enemy was compromised entirely out of pedestrians, than yeah, I think we would do better hitting them with our trucks than shooting them. Interceptor body armor can stop .308 rounds, but won't do shit if a HMMWV rolls over you. I'm sure you even know that this is a stupid comparison to make, and you're just trying to discredit what I'm saying with a ridiculous scenario.

Can you shoot the tires out on a moving car? It's hard enough to hit a moving person, much less the tires of a vehicle. Even then, guns aren't used to incapacitate people. No police or military force has a "shoot to pacify" policy. That's dangerous. If someone requires being shot, then the police are not going to risk trying to wound the person, then having them still fight back, or missing the shot. If you need to use a gun on someone, you need to stop them right there. You need to drop them. If the person didn't need killing, then they wouldn't have used their guns in the first place.

Protocol is to shoot dead someone who attacks you - whether it be with a knife, gun, or vehicle. If a police officer is standing in front of you, and you try to hit him with your car, it is perfectly reasonable for him to shoot you. You just tried to kill him.

On top of that, again, this woman was speeding down Pennsylvania Avenue after trying to enter a restricted area. So once again, they did not know what she was up to. They did not know if she was just a panicking, mentally troubled woman - or someone who was trying to cause actual harm. Initially the police did not know what was going on, so they tried to stop her with a barricade. Was this not sound logic? That a woman who just hit someone with her car and sped off erratically should be stopped by the police? Then she plowed through the police barricade when the officers approached to arrest her. Is is not not sound logic to assume that this woman was up to something? They went with the safest bet, which was to assume she was planning something malicious, that she was willing to run through a police barricade to do it, and that she was dangerous.

BS on three injured cops. One cop injured himself by driving through a barricade. If the other injured cop comes from the scene depicted in the video, which one is he? Doesn't look like an injury could have occurred there. Who is the third injured cop?

Police routinely falsely allege they were injured after they kill a "suspect" to give people the impression their actions were justified and to sequester the officer so he/she isn't questioned about the shooting.

[deleted]

They are so distanced from reality. They really only see "good guys" and "bad guys." "Bad guys" don't even get basic civil rights. Sick. They really don't see us as people.

[deleted]

that's pretty generous!

[deleted]

Y thank you, it had this trippy appeal!

Agreed! idk why people would down vote a comment about liking a username... People these days...

I'm just going to say I think you're going a bit far there.

At least they were considered 3/5 of a person

If I'm not mistaken, Congress at that time did not know the police fired on an unarmed woman with a child in her car. Of course, this may not be true but who knows.

So they were blindly applauding people for shooting someone even though they had bone of the facts? Doesn't make it much better.

whats the term for apathy x 10000?

no fucks given.

Defeat

struggle

one day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94

Crazier to think that the lamestream media and much of the population applauds the thuglice. I absolutely refuse to call them police anymore. If youre a good cop and youre just watching your ass seeing this going on and saying or doing nothing- you are as guilty as they are.

Yeah, this is a sad day for us all.

yeah, I guess we should all commit suicide (or quit whining)

What does your comment have to do with a story about a lady who tried to run over a police officer?

[deleted]

I have traveled around the world bud. You know what happens in a war zone? Checkpoints, searches, and raids. What is happening in the US? The exact same thing. I'm tired of hearing "you guys don't know how good you have it" Well here it is bad. More police officers murder in cold blood here everyday. Our constitution has been ripped to shreds. Our country is very similar to any warzone on the planet because the militarized police force treat it as such.

The assassination of journalists. The war on drugs. It doesn't make it any different because we have McDonald's and iPads.

For a car that broke barriers and rammed people, it seems to have had minimal damage. I would like some better info as well.

http://www.publiusforum.com/images/WhiteHouseCarChase_01.jpg

edit: how did four people that close to the car not see baby and baby gear(seat, baby bag, supplies) in the car http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1475554.1380834153!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/182999379.jpg

it didnt break barriers, it went over lowered barriers at a checkpoint it was meant to stop at and then tried to pass the next checkpoint but found itself pressed against the barriers you see in your first image there. That image is the moment after she backed her car, the front of which was pressed against those barriers, into a police car. Then, despite being surrounded by police with guns drawn decided to speed away thru them. I don't know exactly how much visual damage you are looking for, but you can clearly see this ladder chain of events in the footage.

And as for your other point. They probably did see the child, which is probably why they didn't fill the car full of holes as soon as she initially backed into a squad car and then attempted to flee thru the officers surrounding her all in front of the most heavily guarded building in the world.

Edit: also both the image you posted and the video I posted are from the beginning of the incident in front of the white house, I'm not sure what is meant to have happened to the car at the capitol where the chase ended but you can see from the second image you posted that there is a knocked over barricade behind her car.

The video I saw had 7 shots fired. They did fill the car with holes.

They did it when she sped away from them, but only once she started pulling away. As a capital police officer you have someone in this situation and the next thing they do is they almost drive over some of you in pulling away, they have to disable that car, this is Pennsylvania ave in front of the White House. Unauthorized cars are not supposed to be here, let alone smashing into and running from police here.

Yea I think I agree with you, police kind of have a right to be paranoid that close to the capital.

Why? Do you know how many people work and visit that area? Why is this a Constitution free zone? There are already a huge amount of police there. They already have barriers and checkpoints, as we are seeing, making attacks unlikely. Maybe the paranoia causes more problems because it's hard for lots of people to think clearly when many men with guns are shouting at you and pointing weapons at you and your child when you don't expect it because you made a wrong turn in a crowded downtown area. Clearly, this incident could have ended without any deaths. Unless you're telling me these strong, "brave," "heroes" can't arrest an unarmed woman with her 1 year old without filling her full of holes?

That's why I said kind of. I'm not sure they had to kill her but when you're that close to legislators/the president without any knowledge of whether her car had a bomb or something it's not surprising that they acted paranoid. That's one of the places that you can't fuck around with the police.

Maybe the paranoia causes more problems because it's hard for lots of people to think clearly when many men with guns are shouting at you and pointing weapons at you and your child when you don't expect it because you made a wrong turn in a crowded downtown area.

And see I just don't think that's a typical response to having police shout at you and point guns at you. Typically you'd put your hands up and do whatever the fuck they tell you because you're scared as shit. I think her abnormal response was part of what caused the police to be so jumpy (and hence firing).

Clearly, this incident could have ended without any deaths.

I agree and I didn't call them brave or heroes, you're putting words in my mouth.

I didn't mean to imply you used those words. I was in-artfully trying to reference the way the Congress and media has treated the police--as "heroes" and being "brave."

I think this panic response may be more common that you imagine. People have all sorts of abilities, reaction times, fears, experiences, etc. In fact, weren't these checkpoint killings routine in Iraq, precisely because so many people didn't react to the extreme and scary force used in a way that the young military men thought was obvious?

I can see how young men, in general, are going to be accustomed to this type of command (pointing guns and yelling). But older people with slow reaction times, lots of women, people that had abusive parents that constantly yelled at them, or people that come from other cultures or don't speak the language, can all react much differently. Plus, this area is a busy tourist area and lots of people would not expect a military style checkpoint. If they are going to use military style lethal force checkpoints they should put huge warning signs like they do in Iraq warning that deadly force will be used.

I remember when I was a teenager and worked in a grocery store and I was soooo frustrated at how slow people walked and how pathetic they were about getting out of the way, etc., and that's because I was a young and had quick reflexes and attuned to what I was doing but lots of people were just shuffling through their day and if you descend on people like this yelling with guns it can cause a fight or flight reflex, or simply frozen panic where the brain doesn't work.

I agree with your sentiment, and putting warnings up would probably be good.

The rest I think definitely might be true, but I can't speak to it. I'm not sure how people react to checkpoints and how often people drive through them incorrectly. In general I do agree cops resort to firearms way too often, and this very well might have been one of those cases.

I'm just saying, from a practical standpoint, that cops there are obviously going to be on high alert and are going to be much quicker than at less important places. Did they make a mistake? Obviously. Was it there fault? Maybe but it's less clear, at least in my opinion. With the benefit of hindsight it's easy to say that they shouldn't have shot her but the way she was driving around and the unknown of how dangerous she was is a pretty dangerous combination.

A car is a lethal weapon. If you drive at a police officer you have escalated the conflict to the point where they are perfectly justified returning fire

Yeah, but it wasn't lethal anymore after they had her car stopped and she exited the vehicle. It's like a suspect throwing down his gun and then shooting him anyway.

At the point the police/media claim she used her car as a lethal weapon, depicted in the video, the officers didn't fire their weapons at her, indicating they didn't fear for their lives.

Paranoid to the point of shooting a woman while there is a baby in the backseat? That doesn't sound like paranoia to me.

Well, they did disable the car but shot her anyway.

If they shot her to disable the car that is pretty dangerous because that could hurt even more people as she would lose control of the car or even press on the gas as she was dying. There are non lethal methods to disable a car.

My understanding is that SOP nowadays leans to either stopping a chase or to back off so the fleeing suspect doesn't freak out killing more people. Or, to use spike strips or to box her in using police vehicles. I wasn't aware of the shooting to kill the driver method, at least not in war zones.

Here, I don't have many issues with the boxing in method and that's apparently what they did. But they admit to shooting her after she exited her car. They claim she was trying to "flee" but obviously since they've lied so many other times in this incident we can't believe it and there certainly were non lethal ways to arrest an unarmed woman (with her child), since the place was swarming with police.

boxing her in didn't work so well.

That's the first attempt to box her in. They successfully boxed her in 16 blocks away and then she reportedly exited her vehicle and they executed her because she attempted to "flee" on foot.

Do you think it's appropriate to shoot to kill an unarmed woman who is fleeing on foot while a veritable army of police are chasing her?

Personally I don't think anyone should be shooting anyone.

Do I thinking it was the job of capital police to stop her after showing this kind of behavior around the White House and the hill, yes.

I hate the war on terror, but hypothetically, if she was a terrorist with a car bomb or a bomb vest, would she not behave exactly the way she did? Evading and escaping at all costs from seemingly inescapable situations, safety of her child be damned?

at that exact picture, why did they not shoot out all the tires. put some shots in the engine, if thats even plausible, not sure if it'd blow it up or not but still. these are Capital cops and they can't stop a lil ole woman in her car. lmao.

I don't think bullets pierce tires as easily as we think they do.

correct, but when stopped, and you hit the sidewalls, I would think it wouldn't be an issue. Car going at full speed, or even at a moderate speed, I would agree with you.

You've never shot a tire and you're making stuff up as you go. Bravo.

Either have you, encore!

No, but I am not claiming it can be done easily -- you are.

I happen to know otherwise, so I would never try doing that. It's a really stupid idea, because tires have steel belts inside them. The rubber is one thing. Getting cut in two by a flying steel belt is another.

yea, I think several cops shooting several rounds into tires would easily have stopped her movement. Also remember there were semi-automatic rifles on the scene. IIRC the area was on lockdown, so i'm pretty sure there weren't just handguns on the scene. I'm guessing semi-auto, automatics, shotguns, etc.

I am not going to shoot at something made of hard rubber that's a couple of feet from my legs and a bunch of my colleague's.

of course you're not, you're going to shoot at an unarmed woman with a 2 yr old thats nervous and scared for her life.

Oh, go shoot some tires from a couple feet away.

where you at? I'll meet you at a corner somewhere

Just go slash a tire. Then get back to me.

here's the thing, there were several cops there, and would have made SEVERAL shots. I get that if it was one shot, it would not have done much and had a slow leak. We're talking several cops loading several bullets into the tires. So neither of us are going to test that out. I may be wrong. I haven't seen a test where multiple rounds on a vehicle by several LEO's was tested.

The problem is that you don't realize what happens when a vandal ruptures a tire. Pieces of steel belt come flying at your face. It's a stupid thing to do, but even stupider that you talk out your ass. You obviously have never even monkeyed with a tire, and know zero about tires.

I've seen a tire shot and it doesn't blow up. So are you talking out of your ass?

No, I would assume you watched someone shoot a non-inflated tire, or perhaps are lying. I definitely would not upgrade your suggestion for the police from retard level.

uhhh, what? you're an idiot. you're telling me tires blow up when shot? maybe on the A-team reruns, or Dukes of Hazzard.

There could have been a bomb in the boot or something like that. KRATOS says shoot any suspected bomber multiple times (in the head) before they can push the button.

so why didn't they do that when the car was stopped against the barrier if there "could have been a bomb."

You are wiser than VernonMaxwell.

Yes, let's take your opinion seriously.

because these cops can't shoot out a few tires, and the engine. Because the cops can't ram a woman into the barrier and keep her there, mind you the driver doesn't have near the training they do. Yea, its so far fetched that some trained LEO's couldn't stop her movement. How crazy I must sound.

this is a much better reply, your first one sounded like you were a bit of a tart.

And I agree completely, and no the car won't blow up they did a Mythbusters about it.

Tunnel vision. Given this scenario, if you're focused on the driver in a tense moment you tend to not see your surroundings.

But that's only a theory on my part.

Babies tend to mimic adults. If mom was panicked out of her mind, that baby should have been wailing. Although, police sirens can mute pretty much anything. That and your idea of tunnel vision makes it scary that these sensory-deprived officers imagined shooting their gun was a good idea.

Like I said, it's just a theory especially since anyone, no matter how trained they are, can face such.

But then it mostly happens to soldiers in combat which is why they're trained to always check their surroundings.

Don't you think it's possible the mother realized the cops didn't see her baby, knew they were going to open fire, and so freaked and fled?

Possible but really have no idea what was going on through her mind during this whole thing. People are saying suicide by cop and then there's conflicting reports of how she died either being shot while still in her car before she continued on or shot while fleeing.

Maybe. But that still doesn't justify her actions.

I'm not a cop but everything I've ever heard/read from people that are involved in shootings is that there are a lot of physical factors that come into play. Your heart rate increases significantly and your adrenaline kicks in, good ol' "fight or flight" stuff. I would assume that in a scenario like that, even with the best of training, that it could be at least possible to only be focused on your "target" and not notice other things.

Pretty much, yea.

They saw. They just didn't care. They wanted the thrill of the kill

[Citation needed]

As a person who has been in those types of situations once the first shot is fired everyone is opening up. All it takes is one guy that really wants to kill. Once he takes that step his buddies are going to fire and then the blame is placed on a group of officers and not on one.

Accept my apologies, I didn't realise you'd interviewed the officers involved.

[deleted]

You're assuming with bias.

It could have been that they were focused on the driver that they did not see the kid in the back seat.

Tunnel vision for all 4. Excellent training. Where were they stationed anyway? Any place of importance?

yea at least one would have seen the baby and they are trained to vocalize that kind of info immediately

I think at that time? At the white house where the incident first occurred before she went off on a speeding chase down to the Capitol Building.

Unarmed woman and child. Unless they saw a weapon, the only threat was that vehicle.

Shoot the tires, shoot the engine, apparently shooting an unarmed woman is acceptable nowadays.

If she was in the vehicle, you're shooting at a toddler, if she's out of the vehicle, your'e shooting executing a mother in front of her child. This is just despicable.

That's true. In this case the vehicle is now being used as a weapon since it has been used to pass a barrier and collide into another one, damaged a car, and supposedly injured an officer. Plus there wasn't a clear shot at any time for them to hit a tire, much less successfully penetrate the hood of the car at a side angle and damage the engine block.

The best and, sadly, easiest target in a car is the driver. Anything else will take far too much ammo and larger armament to successfully damage. I really cannot speak for where the child was at the time but there is no question that it was in a car seat and below the windows where they were no doubt targeting to hit the driver at the time.

As for her getting out and shot while running? That is hardly, hardly a new thing and not exactly unheard of.. But it also depends where she was running to.

Plus there wasn't a clear shot at any time for them to hit a tire, much less successfully penetrate the hood of the car at a side angle and damage the engine block.

"you're assuming with bias"

http://www.publiusforum.com/images/WhiteHouseCarChase_01.jpg

They had no need to shoot out a tire there when they were trying to get her out of a car and even then, she was moving far too quickly for them to effectively target a tire, which still would not have completely stopped the car and cause it to swerve.

I believe you stated something about there not being a clear shot at any time, correct? and then something about not being able to penetrate the hood of the car at a side angle. Or did I imagine that?

It's just an unorthodox procedure for police to do such stuff and you never heard of police officers shooting at engine blocks or tires during chases or when trying to get someone out of a car. When they were at that moment, they were far more busy trying to get her out of the car then to unload a full clip into the hood of her car hoping it'd be enough to disable the engine or be able to pierce through the hood.

It's just not effective.

I'm talking about shooting the tires when she was stopped. not a chase...cops yell, TURN OFF THE FUCKING CAR, if she doesn't, you shoot the fuck out of her tires and engine. There were plenty of cops at the scene.

Again, that is not something cops will do and never do.

I don't doubt that. They're always trigger happy to kill if they get an opportunity.

That's not what factors into it. A blown tire does not stop a car from moving on and you can see that in any police chase with a spikestrip deployed and pops all four tires.

Shooting at an engine, best they could do is hit the radiator which would not cause it to stop right then and there and she can go on for long periods with the engine smoking.

Again, these just aren't effective tactics and very unorthodox for anyone to do.

A blown tire may not stop a car, but it reduces the threat and makes it easier to stop the car using something like the PIT maneuver.

You are right, shooting at the engine can be a bit of a crap-shoot. However, you can't convince me that it isn't worth trying a few 12 gauge slugs through the hood.

I don't know why they didn't make a bigger effort to block the car in with police cruisers then go from there. That seems like the best way to minimize collateral damage.

I question the last part as well but it really didn't seem like they had shotguns on hand at the time to be able to do such.

gotcha, all that makes sense, and I can agree shooting the tires or engine may have not stopped her then. But c'mon, these guys are trained, and I'm sure, and I hope, they don't allow rink-a-dink cops near the white house. They had her against the barricade, there were enough cars where I would think they cold have pinned her in. Hell you even see cops in other states pin people in. It wasn't like she was making some intricate james bond get away moves nor had some crazy type of skill. All she did was friggin reverse at the barrier. First instinct would be to pin someone that is in a car if what you say about shooting the tires/engine is true and wouldn't work. You pin the person. They had her stop briefly, so its not like they thought there was a bomb in that car, otherwise they would have reigned bullets right then and there.

also regarding the tire/engine thing, I forgot that there was a lockdown on the heavily guarded area, and there were semi-automatic weapons on the scene, and I'm sure other type of weapons especially due to the area. So its not like there was just one LEO with one handgun. We're talking multimple LEO's and semi-automatic guns, shotguns, automatics.

You are wrong. They could have easily shot the tires.

That doesn't stop the car. Ever.

No. No you cannot easily shoot out tires.

http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1no99f/female_suspect_dead_after_attempting_to_ram_white/cckropi

Your proof is another Redditor's comment???

given that he says he's a gun owner? Try to read it, at least.

Honestly i go shooting around once or twice a month

You are adorable :D

They were standing right next to the car.

[deleted]

no, there wasn't a clear shot at ANY time

http://www.publiusforum.com/images/WhiteHouseCarChase_01.jpg

"No clear shot - OPEN FIRE!"

That should be the little motto stamped on their cars .

[deleted]

"ITS NOT A BABY, ITS A BOOMMBBBBB. FIRRRRE!"

[deleted]

He probably couldn't get a clear headshot...of the baby.

If the child was in the back seats? Perhaps, perhaps not. It's really hard to tell.

[deleted]

Training has nothing to do with it. She was a threat regardless of there being a child inside or not and 9mm cannot pierce anything more then a window of a car.

What. A 9mm cannot pierce anything thicker than a pane of glass?

What?

I'm saying on a car.

When did bullets stop working on that soft stuff that surrounds hubcaps?

She was a threat regardless of there being a child inside

She was a threat one hundred feet away from them? No, she was no longer presenting an immediate threat.

9mm cannot pierce anything more then a window of a car.

No.

If that's the case then they did a terrible job.

The toddler was armed to the teeth and also had a deadman's triggered explosive attached to his carseat. The one year old also had a full neck beard and a blue turban. The plan was to attack the president, but the BRAVE men and women of the DC police force have stopped one of USAs deadliest attacks since 911. The back trunk of the car was packed with pressure cookers, diapers, and a copy of the Koran. The mother was found to be mentally unstable when they performed an autopsy 10 seconds after killing her in her car.

Circlejerk all you want, but just remember, that baby won't have a mother. Forever.

Sarcasm. I think you missed something important. The point was in response to the false media reports and the standing ovation given on the house floor.

I heard the baby was the one shooting at the capitol building. Only stopping to reload and sip on bottled milk.

She 'tried to ram the White House barriers'... Where are the marks on her car?! There aren't any. Looks like she made a wrong turning and panicked because she had her baby with her...

Regardless of what word you want to use, her car was pressed head first against the barriers just before she backed into the cop car, you can clearly see it in the footage.

If it was the case that she made a wrong turn, why didn't she try to explain that to the police at the first checkpoint she ran, or to the ones who surrounded her car with guns drawn, instead of taking the seemingly suicidal step of trying to plow her way through them?

Perhaps being shouted and having deadly weapons aimed at you, while your child is in a vulnerable position, makes some people panic?

Jesus fucking christ you people will twist anything to fit whatever rant you are on for a given week.

being shouted and having deadly weapons aimed at you, while your child is in a vulnerable position, makes some people panic

That's not a reasonable statement? That takes a huge stretch of logic? Gimme a break.

I find it funny that you find a person panicking in a situation like that unlikely. You are truly desensitized and assume everyone is like you.

If this was a domestic dispute which did not involve the cops you would think of her as a crazy son of a bitch. Insert the cops and suddenly it has to be a completely normal panic reaction. Get the fuck out of here. Admit you've lost this whole debate.

when faced with the a real danger of death, for example a gun pointed at you, it doesn't matter whether you started it or thought about it before hand, your flight or fight response will kick in. that's why when you take lessons in using a hand gun they tell you, never to yell freeze, because it increases the likelihood that you will be shot by the perp. Get back to class, kid before someone calls the truancy officer.

Derp. You just proved my point yet again. :)

woosh. I hope you have someone that loves you because you are going to need help to live.

Bring it on asswipe. Surely you can give out a real insult. You sound like a fucking angry little girl right now.

Awwwww did I hit a sore spot?

A. "You people"? Ad hominem?

B. I didn't "twist" anything because there's nothing to be twisted. It's called playing 'Devil's Advocate'.

Ad Hominem: Attacking an opponents character or personal traits rather than their argument, or attacking arguments in terms of the opponents ability to make them, rather than the argument itself

^{Created at /r/RequestABot}

^{If you dont like me, simply reply leave me alone fallacybot , youll never see me again}

This is r/conspiracy, they can probably give religious people a run for their money when it comes to twisting information

Bullshit. The posts and informed speculation here were more accurate than media reports. People here were quicker to get the correct facts than pretty much all other media sources and other discussion forums.

Let's count the mainstream media false reporting:

The media reported she fired shots. They reported that she damaged that officer's car when he ran into the barrier himself (still today I see many media sources deceptively implying this and using the photo of the damaged car for emotional impact). They reported she "rammed" the barrier when the video and evidence doesn't show it. They reported/implied that she was heading to the Capital building to attack there. They reported that she hit an officer at a barrier and drug him, or something (this is unclear but I assume they are referring to the WH roundabout checkpoint where maybe she hit an officer's car as she backed up to flee). They reported leaks/lies about her mental health, implying that postpartum depression would cause her to do this (how postpartum depression would lead to this behavior isn't clear. She wanted suicide by cop for her and her child?). They reported another adult was in the car with her. Some media used headlines with the word "terror" and hyped the Congress shutting down and the Congresspersons cheering for the police. I have yet to see any real critical questions in the media. Instead they dutifully parrot the police line.

I'd have to agree with your statement karpomalice...we don't know the preceding events that lead to her decision, we don't know her, or her background, or anything about the situation despite a few mainstream media angled photos. Who is to say really what happened or why at this point - I'm reading a lot of different stories as if all these people saw it with their own eyes...it's just spreading rumors at this point.

Which is what I was saying before Karmapolice came in with his self-righteous attitude: "perhaps there's another explanation".

Every action she took put her child in an exponentially more vulnerable position.

Is the implication that she panicked and went into some sort of sustained trance of making reckless decisions? Because this incident was significantly longer than the clip available, it didn't all happen in the heat of the moment.

Well when you panic you really aren't thinking clearly so bad decisions are bound to happen.

And is a responsible officer, imagining they exist supposed to just let people crash into traffic and let them cool of for 15 minutes? If you crash into a cop car, get guns pointed at you already while being stationary and manage to still make a decision that stupid you shouldn't be allowed to drive, this is far beyond what any law enforcement personal, given it truly severs it's purpose should have to endure. Shooting tires would have been sensible when the car was stationary and refused cooperation.

being stupid isnt illegal, no matter how bad i wish it was in traffic.

So was she ok to panic like this? Do you supper this behavior as absolutely normal behavior?

No. Under normal circumstances she should stop the vehicle, park it, unlock doors, place hands on steering wheel. I personally think she should not have panicked like that but I'm not her, I don't know what she was going through. The thing is panicking is something you should try to avoid doing. Everyone panics, animals panic even. Its not ok to do it but it happens.

And then time goes by

And then you make another.

I mean I've panicked before and made mistakes, but its a fairly brief impassioned thing. I've never experienced one of these 15 minute panic trance states that is being described here.

Well to be fair did you ever have a dozen cops point weapons at you and your child yelling shit. Lets not forget that she is black and they have a history of not being on good terms with the cops. But nowadays only rich people are on good terms with cops.

But they pointed those weapons after she turned onto the restricted part of Pennsylvania ave and went into the barricade, and before she sped away and continued for nearly ten blocks towards the capital.

So to be fair I haven't done either of those things either.

Also, she was from Stamford. She may have encountered racism and police brutality and profiling there, but nothing on the level of run from the cops when they have you surrounded sort of experiences. I actually grew up in Stamford, I literally have chilled with my (significantly multiracial) friends on the roof of her apartment building Woodside Green, we used to always chill at the gazebo in the middle of the complex. Heck I might have known this woman come to think of it.

Oh come on man. I was with you until you dropped the race card. Just let racism die. Let's stop keeping it alive.

I didn't drop the race card to say the police were racist. I am black and we do have a mistrust of police. Even if it doesn't make the news we know that if a cop is pointing a gun at a black man or woman then chances are you will be shot. But as I said this is now applying to everyone who isn't considered important.

A woman who almost ran over several police and rammed through cop cars is allowed to associate this to panic.

A cop who shoots a dog that jumps at him is a monster.

This subreddit isn't /r/conspiracy. It's /r/fuckthepolice.

Fuck you. Seriously. This is not a justifiable 'panic'. You know it. I know it. Quit thinking you are some smart mother fucker who thinks you see a truth we are too dumb to see.

I said "perhaps"; I was playing Devil's advocate not pretending to have an informed opinion like "this is not justifiable 'panic'". I'm not qualified to say what "justifiable panic" is as I've never been in that situation. The only person who could say for sure why it happened is dead.

So what's this truth I think I'm seeing?

Perhaps you're rude over the internet because you have insecurities which make you feel persecuted?

Most people that make a wrong turn in traffic and get yelled at by cops to turn around or leave don't assume that disobeying their orders will result in deadly force. I've seen cops get really grouchy when doing traffic at events . . . . would you expect them to shoot you for noncompliance, or instead issue you a ticket in a worst case situation?

If she wanted "suicide" by cop (because of alleged pospartum depression, is the media spin), why not hop out of her car and charge the WH or something? Her actions don't look like suicide by cop.

Plus, she's not trying to "plow" through them necessarily. If you look closely the police are standing between or behind those poles that would prevent her from hitting them. She also makes a turn and she doesn't aim straight for the police. Also, she advertises what she is doing but backing up first, and presumably turning her wheel, showing she intends to try to exit, giving the police time to give way to her car, which they clearly do by jumping out of the way. Lastly, the space is so tight and her car so low that she could do little damage even if she were to aim for them (her car would have been stopped by the poles).

Most people being yelled at by cops, aren't yelled at at gun point, let alone by a squadron of cops.

If I am in this situation and I don't comply, yes I would absolutely expect to be shot.

Yes she advertized her turn pretty well by smashing into the cop car behind her while making the 3 point turn she used to get out. They jump out of the way because she is going to hit them (one of whom I believe she does).

Perhaps she was simply mentally unstable? Would it be too difficult to just follow her until they can stop her without killing her?

Unfortunately for her, when it comes to the White House there is a lot less leeway than there might be in other situations.

Also as far as the police are concerned the way she was operating her car was assault with a deadly weapon. Here are a couple similar cases someone else posted earlier.

I do not support violence and definitely don't think they should have shot her, but given the circumstances I am not the least bit surprised that they did.

I would guess drugs were having a bad reaction or chemical imbalance, firing shots was the most dangerous thing i saw in the video. I don't think people were running from the car they were worried the cops were about to fire.

"There were multiple shots fired and the air was filled with gunpowder," said Berin Szoka, whose office at a technology thinktank overlooks the shooting scene.

Ah ya, all that black powder smoke.

You should go to a range sometime and burn through a magazine. It's smoky.

Not sure if trolling, or just not informed about firearms.

Most (read everything but black powder rifles as far as I know) firearms use smokeless powder. So that kind of puts a damper on your comment.

Additionally, the police didn't "burn through a magazine" so I doubt, even if this did produce a smoke cloud, that there was a smoke cloud present.

Source: I've fired more than my fair share for firearms. Everything from 240G's on full auto to KRISS Super V on full auto. I saw a CIWS throw 10,000 rounds at a target drone one time while on ship. They did not produce smoky conditions.

For real? You're saying you've actually fired a handgun, and there was not smoke drifiting out of the barrel afterwards? You're out of your goddamned tree my brother. Or the military is using much better loads than the Winchester .40's I buy at the range.

I think you've watched one too many movies. Your barrel smoke is a far cry from the image the source article was trying to paint. I've been at indoor ranges with every lane in use, most with rifles with three round burst and I didn't any cloud.

Okay man, whatever.

[deleted]

You're a piece of shit.

Doesn't it also make you ill to see a mother recklessly putting a toddler in such increasingly dangerous situations?

She didn't just wake up one day and find herself with guns pointed at her and fled. She put herself in the situation to be surrounded by cops with guns drawn. She attempted to breach the security of the most secure building in the world with a car. And then when she was caught and surrounded, she further endangered herself and her child by fleeing through the circle of police surrounding her. And then after somehow not getting killed in that incredibly reckless homi/suicidal act, she continued to increase the danger she and her child were in by leading police on a chase.

As a reminder, unarmed people kill people everyday by hitting them with cars.

Thank you for injecting some sense into this discussion. The anti-police circle jerk on reddit can get extremely tiring.

The problem is that the police created the scenario. If just one of them had taken the time to calmly ask her if everything was alright and if she needed help that would have ended it. Instead they aggressively continued to escalate the situation until she was in fear for her life and felt the need to flee with her child. Obviously her fears were well founded. Perhaps you're comfortable living in a world where police manufacture crisis and then rationalize the murdering of innocent people but I'm not.

How? If someone is acting erratic in a vehicle how would one calmly talk to her without risking getting hit by the car?

Dealt with many life/death mental health situations? Your complete lack of any fucking idea what you are on about suggests not. Good day.

Yes police manipulate and manufacture crisis all the time, it has happened to me repeatedly. But this was not an entirely manufactured crisis. This was the restricted section of Pennsylvania Ave in front of the White House we are talking about. Like it or not, those particular police on that particular piece of road that no one is supposed to be on have very little tolerance for anyone driving around and evading them. She had ample opportunity to grasp the magnitude of what she was doing before she went into the second barricade and then was surrounded by police and then backed into one and then pulled away as they were surrounding her guns drawn nearly running some over and then leading them on a chase ten blocks to the Capitol. It really seems to me like she was the one escalating the situation at each of these turns. At any given point she could have stopped and ended the whole thing.

I suppose that rape victim shouldn't have been dressed so provocatively either right? She was asking for it.

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, evading capitol police in front of the White House like you've got a car bomb you want to blow the president up with is basically like wearing a short skirt and speaking to strange men at the public house.

I didn't know it was possibly to be met with so many logical fallacies in so little time.

Now that my interpretation of how this woman could have kept her child safe has made me a rape apologist, anyone want to take a swing at my heritage or skin color next? Next someone is going to say that I'm only asserting you should comply when surrounded by armed police instead of plowing through them to get away and lead them on a 2 mile chase because I am an Aries.

Edit: To further answer your condescending question as tho it deserved a response, in law there is a term they use to determine cause: foreseeability. By going out dressed sexy and talking to men at a bar it is not foreseeable that your actions should lead to you being raped. However by being in this particular situation, surrounded by capitol police in front of the White House and smashing your way out of it thru police instead of giving up, it is foreseeable that they would shoot you.

How does one calmly ask someone if everything is alright when they are attempting to run you over with a car?

Except walking up by your self to calmly see if someone who is acting suspicious usually ends up with you getting shot.

I dont know what world you live In, or were you are. But in real life you need to be ready for the worse. Crap when a suspicious looking car pulls in my hands over my knife, if something dosnt look or feel right you best be prepared. Its not like they said hey this women seens dangerous lets blow her away. No she warrented suspicion and then she behaved like a lunatic.

When someone can write this sort of justification for such an act, and believe it as passionately as you obviously do, it causes me to believe that we really do need to surrender ourselves as a species. The universe is going to be a better place without humanity.

You are a very, very sick person. I hope one day, that something will allow you to regain your empathy.

I don't understand what is sick about what I have said.

I have not posited any justification. Simply trying to lay out that this woman appears to have been behaving in an severely reckless and arguably suicidal manner. Simply because I feel that the mother and not the police was the one putting the child in harms way does not mean I have lost my empathy.

I said it before and I will again:

Watch this short video

Tell me if you, as a hypothetical capital police officer in front of the White House, would not do anything you could to stop this person.

More to the point tell me if you, as the hypothetical person in that car, would not either STOP, or expect to be fired upon.

You're being a voice of reason amidst underage cop-haters.

I gotta give my respects to you, I couldn't stay so calm with these comments.

The point here is "people kill with cars everyday" that's your justification. Next, it's some guy with a cell phone in his hand "well he shouldn't of put himself in that situation where his cell phone might of been a gun!."

Contrary to popular belief police cannot shoot first but once she went on that sidewalk toward the barrier it was game over. The police acted in accordance with policy/law by positioning themselves around that car which basically means trying to drive out of their perimeter escalates the situation allowing for use of deadly force.

Last point.

Police yelling stop or freeze means jackshit.

People kill with cars every day was not a justification, it is a fact and a reminder. I wasn't saying that all people in cars are armed, I was simply reminding that just because one does not have a conventional weapon does not mean that they are not a threat for harm, particularly if they are displaying a propensity to ram cars and police officers with their car.

I feel like my statement was less hyperbolic than they hyperbolic statement i was responding to which is that in addition to the mother, the baby was also unarmed.

[deleted]

capitol

FTFY

[deleted]

Suspect could have been innocent as well.

I think he was jokingly implying suspects are not innocent in America.

Isn't that how it works? Guilty until proven innocent.

STOP RESISTING!

Get your face off under my boot! I just had it shined!

Great now your blood is all over it. Time to kill your dog!

Make sure to send the bill for laundry and bullets.

[deleted]

or until trial by cop gun.

Dead men bring no evidence.

Suspect WAS innocent. Until proven guilty.

unless that suspect was actually the guilty one...

So many possibilities. A crazed person going off the rails (alert the mind control theorists...), a person with a grievance trying to commit suicide by cop, a person with health issues that has an accident and panics when armed people want her to stop and leave the car that has her kid in... and the reaction of the cops, the possibility of it being a car bomb surely left them little headspace to do nothing but react in a basic manner.

Luckily, DC and specially that specific area must be brimming with security cameras. So it's just a matter of checking and assembling the footage and in a week or so we'll have a coherent spatial timeline of the whole event.

Right? Right?

Video footage from security cams? you mean like those at the Pentagon? oh wait...

Today I forgot that government cameras only work when they want them to.

There were hundreds of people suck in traffic going to work that morning. Hundreds. They all saw a plane. Not a single one said they saw a missile. Would you mind explaining that?

But did you know a third tower fell? Therefore, missile.

Source? From what I remember there are quite a few that came forward saying they NEVER saw a plane. And why were videos confiscated from nearby businesses that could have clearly shown the plane? And they were confiscated within an hour or 2 if I remember correctly. The whole Pentagon hit was the most questionable part of 9/11 to me. The hole it created, the fact that there has never been any video released and that people have said they never saw a plane. I am not saying it was a missile, but if you rule it out with no evidence (especially when the evidence actually points to a missile) then you are either gullible or you just don't want to question what the government says because any other explanation is so fucking scary.

And just in case you want to check out some video that has been buried this clearly shows it was NOT a jet.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

Here's another.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

You either really suck at using Google or you are too afraid to find out that it is blindingly obvious a plane hit the Pentagon.

Ah. Yeah I watched a few of the interviews and the one that sticks out the most is the last video on the page. The witness heard a plane go overhead. It was a "small plane flying very low". If a 747 or whatever they claim hit the building, why in the world would he say it was a small plane? We have all been on a plane I am sure and we have heard how loud they are, nobody would say a "small plane" flew overhead if it was 100+ passenger jet flying as low as they claim this one was.

On the other hand, the video I provided shows a small object striking the Pentagon. If it was a plane, it would have been a lot bigger than what is visible in the video. Do some research and keep an open mind about the whole thing please. I used to deny everything questionable about 9/11 as well, but there is so much shady evidence and circumstances about the Pentagon strike that I just can't accept it as true unless they release a video showing the plane hitting the Pentagon from the surveillance videos they confiscated.

It reminds me of the TWA flight 800 story. The facts just do not match the story.

You see, this is why we can't have a rational discussion. You're using ONE witness who said they saw a plane to try and spin that into seeing a missile, while ignoring the 200 other quotes that said they saw a large passenger plane and dozens naming the correct airliner that hit. You are the master cherry picker.

Yeah, good luck with trusting authority.

Many CCTV cameras don't actually work and are just there for show.

Those cameras only operate when the film supports the official narrative. If you go into the set up software for the camera, it is the Propaganda Mode setting.

[deleted]

Sad that this is so far down.

When a car rams through a checkpoint, especially near the fucking White House, it's assumed that there is a bomb. These officers did the right thing. It's sad that this happened, and this woman probably had mental health issues, but the police responded appropriately, and that should be the end of the discussion.

BUT MY EMOTIONS.

This is probably going to get down voted into oblivion, but here it goes...

I watched the video, too. Yes, she was surrounded by officers and probably panicked. However, it is to my understanding that the difference between "fleeing the scene" or "reckless driving", here, is that she was surrounded by officers who were probably announcing "Police!" or "Federal agents!"... or something g around those lines. She is not, at that point, simply "fleeing the scene of an accident" or "driving recklessly". Once you move a vehicle in the direction of officers (or anyone, for that matter) you are using deadly force. Keep in mind, we are talking about a half ton object that can accelerate faster than walking speed rather quickly. Most police departments that I know of consider this "use of deadly force", along the lines of "assault with a deadly weapon"... meaning the vehicle is the weapon. Driving a car at someone can have the same result as aiming a gun at them. That's why the officers used deadly force, in return. People will say, "Why didn't they shoot the tires?!". To my knowledge, that is NOT a standard procedure of any law enforcement office.

Look... I'm as anti-police-state as the rest of the crew here. But, I'm not really seeing a whole lot of wrong in the way things happened on this one. Is it shitty that she died? Yes. Are we in that situation? No.

Half-ton?? Try ton and a half.

You have it correct. This is paranoid insanity. These cops are no more, and provably less reasonable and trustworthy than wild grizzly bears walking down the streets of any major city. At least grizzly bears will mostly stay away from you and not harm you unless they feel directly threatened - and they can´t shoot you. Why, in any situation, would you ever want a group of heavily armed, overly aggressive, hostile, unreasonable elements running around your city? Blah, blah, blah saving me from some unseen evil...

You are most of the evil.

Yep. Militarized and on Steroids.

Yep- most cops get actual testosterone injections at their local hospitals. I know a nurse from Missouri that said she couldn't believe how many injections she gave to cops. And she knows it is happening everywhere. What do they need the extra testosterone for? Just to be more aggressive and belligerent maybe?

It's a common thing for active military. But they aren't supposed to be military.

I support the right to arm bears

Those cops should have seen the child in the car too.

This is what they're trained with nowadays. What do you expect?

http://imgur.com/a/Ne5Jk?gallery#okTKLkg

One officer used photos of his own kids? Jesus, what is wrong with those people?

Well when you have guns lying all over the house you never know when they might turn on you.

[deleted]

white people are very violent criminals

http://i.imgur.com/RZE9vvG.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/tmae32o.jpg

all white.

They pretty much have to be if you really think about it. That's messed up.

Surely that's not real?

Where did you find these? Is this some sort of training mod for police?

you know if it has gotten to the point they have to do that maybe, just maybe they are not on the side of justice. Something is terribly amiss and all we do is bicker on the Internets.

Watch the video CNN posted recently. It makes no sense why they act the way they do.

Car starts off stopped, surrounded by police/security. At that point they had to see the driver and passenger (child) as car was stopped for at least 30 seconds.

Then something happens and the lady swings the car around from a stop (injuring a couple officers) and begins to drive off. At that point, the police all draw their weapons but do not fire. The car is now already fleeing the scene and they start to fire at the vehicle when it's already a hundred feet or more away. WHY then? You're only likely to miss or hit unintended targets at that point.

If you were going to shoot the driver, it should have been right as she moved the car in a sudden way, not far after the fact.

Why not shoot out the tires as soon as she began to flee? They were like 5 feet away.

Have you ever seen police training range with tires as targets?

thought not...

TIL they are only able to fire at targets they've used.

Like the old lady w/shotgun training pic.

Not police, but Ive seen tactical tire deflation drills practiced by paramilitary contractors before. It is at least a thing.

Because it doesn't happen like that. Because people aren't so accurate in real life like they are in video games or movies, especially in a tense situation and cars can still drive on with one or two tires busted.

Also to hit such a small moving target while taking in distance, accuracy, and leading all in a split second? ...Do you really think anyone with decent gun training could do it?

So wildly firing in the direction of the car as it drives further and further away is a better alternative? You know, since their accuracy is so bad and all.

rear windshield is a much larger target and far easier to hit then a tire.

plus tires are thicker than the plastic/metal. they are not as easy to pierce.

for the same reason the police don't shoot the head

Clearly, you've never used a gun.

Clearly, you've never used a police officer.

Not a once!

Ordinarily Id say its not the gun but the liability associated with its misuse. Thats not a problem with police regarding shooting citizens anymore.

Shoot the tires so she can lose control of the vehicle and endanger more lives?

They probably didn't want to shoot her when she was between them for they might hit each other.

Yeah, I also have to give them benefit of the doubt. It seemed to be a pretty tense ordeal. But yet again, they have training for this.

That child is a clear and present danger.

Tike may be armed. Kill it just to be sure.

Everyone needs to stop saying she was 'unarmed' she blatently used her car as a weapon.

Bullshit. She was trying to get away. I never saw her intentionally swerve to hit an officer.

That probably still counts as using your car as a weapon. If you're knowingly driving a car towards someone, you're creating potential for harm, i.e. using the car as a weapon.

Looks like the LEO knowingly jumped in front of a potentially moving car to me. Cops shouldn't make a habit of jumping in front of cars and shooting people for trying to get away, and then justify it by calling the car a deadly weapon. Because you never know, there might be a child in the car.

You....you can see her thoughts?

I can see the video

The kid is gonna grow up like Dexter after seeing his mom gunned down. He will target anyone in uniform.

Only if he's raised to do so. A year old baby is not going to have images of evil cops embedded in his memory, babies don't work that way except on television.

And with reason.

Psychotic boy scouts, they need their kill badge.

The Black-Mother-Headshot Badge is a pretty big deal.

Does everything really have to be a conspiracy? Maybe the cops didn't know a toddler was inside. She was using her car as a weapon... they didn't have much choice. This is well documented with the raw video.

Remember Rodney King?

That guy led police on a high speed car chase at night through LA Ghettos, on PCP. When they finally stopped him, he got his ass beat down by 4 officers.

Result was not a standing ovation by congress, it was an all hell breaks loose riot by East LA. They gunned that lady down.

They shoot first and ask questions later.

You didn't watch the video I see.

To be fair, in the video I think the police could have shot her right away, considering it's the White House. I mean they shoot first in general. I'm thinking back to how the cops reacted in the Dorner case, and many others cases but the Dorner case came to mind right away.

I don't need evidence. The perleece is wrong

Kill them all.

God will sort them out.

All the more reason for 'non-lethal' weapons. I'd have no issue at all if the woman had been tazed, or shot with rubber bullets, or pepper balls.

Amen, how about some spike strips?!

Popup barriers work better.

That was pretty crazy.

Spike strips don't stop vehicles. Deflated tires cause vehicles to lose traction. A out of control vehicle is highly dangerous in city environment.

As dangerous as multiple cops discharging weapons?!...

A car barreling down the street hitting everything in its way has more potential to cause damage than gunfire on a centralized point.

Financial damage sure, loss of life or grievous bodily harm not as much. Are we valuing money or life more?

Murica.

Is this some kind of trick question?

Yeah, because an out of control vehicle has no chance of hitting a pedestrian.

Where's Dog the Bounty Hunter when you need him?

They're just doing their jobs

To be honest. Is that really so wrong? Anyone can be armed and have ill intent, as much as I despise the way the police operates, we need people to stop crime, regardless of superficial appearance.

But I thought Government was closed? What do you mean I can't do donuts on the White House lawn? What kind of bullshit shutdown is this anyway!?

Let me also say this: the only reason you people are defending her is because she's a woman (therefore can do no wrong), has a nice car (can't be criminal, but have made some kind of mistake!), and because you are generally against the government.

And let's not forget that toddler=feels

The toddler added on will only push you further in either direction. That makes me more mad that she'd endanger her kid like that.

She had no gun, so obviously she never showed a gun, or threatened anyone with a gun. What? Is it normal today to shoot dead drivers for traffic violations? Or for not complying in every tiny respect to the unrealistic demands of police?

Police use the excuse that you were using your car as a deadly weapon, when all she appeared to be doing was trying to get away.

Remember Rodney King?

Is it normal today to shoot dead drivers for traffic violations

You mean trying to ram your car through a checkpoint at the most highly secured residence in the world?

If you think of the police as armed, hyper-violent psychopaths wearing blue costumes...as seems to be the case more and more frequently these days, It's not a far stretch to see how someone would be terrified enough to run when police guns are drawn on them. The woman was a dental hygienist with a one year old in the back seat.

Human instinct is to protect itself and offspring in the case someone threatens you....even people in blue costumes.

How can anyone whoo has not killed anybody 'have it coming'? There is no excuse by the cowards. I don't care if she drove away, tried to avoid getting arrested, tried to flee because she may have stolen something or whatever. She should not have been killed, full stop, end of. If the american police cowards rely on killing for whatever reason [apart from actually having a gun pointed at them], then they are not fit for purpose.

If the american police cowards rely on killing for whatever reason [apart from actually having a gun pointed at them]

There are more deadly weapons than guns.

How about if someone points a crossbow at a cop and threatens to fire? Should he shoot or take the arrow?

What if someone is charging at a cop with a claymore? Or a battle axe?

What if someone is driving a car trying to run over multiple cops?

All of those things represent actual, mortal threats to cops. All of those things should get the perpetrator shot. Multiple times. Immediately. And with no repercussions other than having to fill out a report for the cops who shoot.

OK, but how about shoot to lay them down vs shoot to kill?

That's not how it works. There are no trick shots in Law Enforcement. Those only work in the movies.

People dumb enough to threaten a LEO's life deserve to be dead. Period.

People mentally ill enough to threaten a LEO's life should be cared for before they are allowed to do something stupid like threaten a LEO's life.

I have heard of lots of instances where an officer will take out a leg or some such, rather than shooting to kill.

I have LEO's in my family. Their training (primarily to save their own life when some idiot is trying to end it) is 2 in the chest then 1 in the head.

If they believe they can solve the problem with non-lethal force, then obviously they forego the gun and use the taser or whatever other non-lethal method makes sense.

If an idiot was driving a car at them in an attempt to injure or kill, I expect the response would be to aim at the driver's head instead of the car's tires. Cars with flat tires still drive. Drivers with bullets in their head tend to stop trying to run you over.

Lots of similar laws all around the world buddy. Why don't you start your own guvmint in which everyone just gets along

Violence and intimidation put the USA on the map. It's tough to break away from all of that. When being good at fighting wars is considered a desirable trait of being an elected official, you're gonna have a bad time.

The victim is viewed as being at fault. All because she panicked when a man-child with a badge, gun and superiority complex, points a gun at her when her child is in the back seat. All because she didn't get out and curl up in the fetal position. Fear killed this woman.

These types of incidents always remind me of a video out of china where a knife wielding man was actually running up to cops and slashing at them and they never shot at him, never tried to subdue him. They let the situation calm down and eventually arrested him with no injuries to anyone. In america they would have had 10 cops empty a magazine into him in seconds.

Some people want to commit suicide by cop. Let them.

If people haven't figured out by now that threatening a cop's life results in death, well, that's their fucking problem.

How's China's human rights record doing?

I think most of /r/conspiracy needs to take a step back and rethink their ideas about the police. Its easy enough to point at extreme and controversial cases and ramp up the hyperbole to a ridiculous extent, but you have to keep in mind that not only is the USA's police force not the only police force in the world, but that the majority of things that any police do each and every day go unreported due to it being their regular job of keeping order and arresting criminals.

While I am positive that among the various police forces in the world there are a good number of trigger-happy thugs it's important to realize that most police officers are simply regular people doing their job. Whether or not you personally find the job, or a particular incident distasteful you have to keep in mind that we as a society need people around who are prepared to do distasteful things in order to prevent things getting a whole lot worse.

I am unaware of the specifics of this incident, as is pretty much everyone else who wasn't there and wasn't briefed about it. Everything I do know about it points towards the actions of these police officers as being entirely necessary and reasonable. It is sad that someone died, as it always is, but by all accounts this woman was behaving in a very erratic manner and committed several criminal acts. You can't let the presence of a toddler or the fact she was unarmed obscure the main and most important aspect of this - she was committing crimes and fleeing from the police.

What are all you fucking idiots on about? This woman, for reasons unknown (and irrelevant) was fleeing police in front of THE WHITE HOUSE with a child in the car. Then when they stopped her she started ramming them and tried to get away some more. No talking, no reasoning with them even though they gave her a chance to get out.

They shot her because what he was doing was dangerous and she refused to stop. Anyone who reads any further into it is at least as retarded as her. Don't you have tinfoil hats to tend to?

Trying to justify it by making up these "Mental issues". Idiots. Both the people who fabricate and the thousands who gobble it up.

Pretty sure she was armed with a couple thousand pounds of vehicle. All she had to do was stop and put her hands up.

What is this country coming to when a woman with a child in the car can't run over barricades and drive into the white house. She only ran over one secret service agents and they went and shot her. This country is going downhill I tell you what! Back in the old days my uncle used to do donuts on the white house lawn all the time, and u see, back in those days, rich men would ride around in Zeppelins, dropping coins on people, and one day he saw J.D. Rockefeller flying by. So he ran out of the house with a big washtub he'd just used it that morning to wash his turkey, which in those days was known as a walking-bird. They'd always have walking-bird on Thanksgiving, with all the trimmings: cranberries, injun eyes, yams stuffed with gunpowder. Then they'd all watch football, which in those days was called baseball. We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Give me five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones.

"Her car was a deadly weapon."

"It was in the capital and the DCPD didn't know if the car was a bomb."

"They didn't see the toddler."

"They tried to disable the car."

These were the answers from other redditors when I said something similar: that I am fucking sick and tired of every goddamned police interaction with a crazed person ends up with the suspect gunned down. MURDERED by a badge wielding official.

Cognitive dissonance is at an all time high!

Thank god the toddler was unarmed. Those little marksman can be dangerous.

Gotta protect all that money at all costs...

Reckless driving, blatant disregard for lives of civilians and policemen, days after the Navy Yard shooting, the cops held off opening fire as long as was needed. End of story.

It's amazing how little details have spilled out about how that woman got into that fated car chase to begin with.

if this had been some kind of terrorist attack, and the police didnt shoot at the car, and it was successful everyone would bemoan the 'ineffective protection in our nations capital'

some people just have a damned if you do/dont mentality and it wont be changed. not saying she deserved getting shot several times, but when police don't know anything IN THE MOMENT, the have to expect and act as if the worst is happening.

it's easy now, since the media has poured over her history to say she was harmless.

You learned that today? Were you born yesterday?

What happened was that she drove through a security checkpoint, ran over a cop, then started speeding down Pennsylvania Avenue. The police stopped her with a barricade of police cars, which she also rammed, and at that point they started shooting.

Police did not know that there was a child in the car. How could they have, they were busy trying to not get run over.

My thought exactly. It is still unclear what she was doing and why she rammed the barricade, but officers should have detained her, not open fire upon her.

On the other hand, she was in control of a deadly weapon; the car.

They had ample time to breach her window and apply a taser to her, or mace her. This was never an option they attempted, on the video.

But she was trying to ram down the gates of the capital building with her car. While I do think it wasn't the best thing to just gun down a car with a toddler in it and a woman who may or may have been mentally stable, they didn't just start shooting at random.

While the driver was outa line, the cops were way more outa line.

They are fucked up and we are fucked.

[deleted]

Shooting tires only works in the movies. They're really hard to hit on a car that's speeding away. Even if you do pop a tire, you can still drive on it. It wouldn't magically stop the car or anything.

So just firing in the general direction of the car as it drives away is the safer, more logical approach?

No the better option would have been to let her go so she could run over 7 more people down the street...... Right?

dude it is ok. she might have been thinking obama was stalking her (or just made a joke that was taken way out of context) so that means crazy. and it is ok in this country to kill the crazy because dangerous.

this is sarcasm btw

Guys when the fuck are we going to do something about our government?? This is wrong.

You are a special snowflake aren't you

Don't act a fool in any part of DC, especially near the mall & Capitol area.

The police did the right thing

Holy shit. You guys can't be so anti state as to instantly side with the suspect? She put them in a high speed pursuit.

Me myself, in this issue, I am completely, 100% on the side of the one year old.

While that might be true, everyone upvoting you is full of shit. The woman endangered get kid by going on a high speed chase and getting shot at.

Why can't anyone understand this? She had it coming. By the logic of some people here, having a child in your car makes it impervious to bullets and empowered with feels. Fucking hell people are delusional

No, in a sane society, such as the one I live in, the police priorities from highest to lowest is to not endanger the lives of innocents, then stop active in progress crime, and then through detective work, apprehend the criminals. The last step can come weeks later.

Which is why police in nz call off high speed chases as they endanger innocents... They get the crims later.

To be fair, no one cares about NZ, so no one would be attacking them.

Actually, the rest of the world cares about the US the same way as we care about a very fat very drunk but loved uncle waving a loaded machine gun bellowing how much he "luvs" the world....

Actually, the rest of the world cares about the US the same way as we care about a very fat very drunk but loved uncle waving a loaded machine gun bellowing how much he "luvs" the world....

Lol you keep telling yourself that. We don't care at all.

She put them in a high speed pursuit.

'MURICA!

When you are bashed or tazed by a police officer, then you might finally begin to understand.

I have been both, I have also been nearly intentionally trampled by a police horse while sitting in a peaceful protest. Which is why after trying to breach the security of the most guarded place in the world and being surrounded by them guns drawn, I would not flee, lest I desire to be shot.

You can't flee lol.

Yep. Escalating the situation by going on a high speed chase in the nation's capital will sure make them not want to do either of those, or shoot you…wait.

Is it unusual that her name has not been released? It seems weird to me. Normally when police shoot somebody or arrest somebody that information is all over the news within a few hours.

Also the whole "police were unaware there was a child in the car" does not wash at all. When she was stopped by the park there were about 10 cops within 10 feet of the car they had to have seen a child unless it was on the floor of the back seat.

I don't know what happened but several things seem a little weird about this.

Her name was released hours ago.

edit: Sorry I thought I included the link: http://abcnews.go.com/US/miriam-carey-capitol-suspect-suffered-post-partum-depression/story?id=20465157

Well, she was crazy. That explains why the cops shot her.

GTA V is clearly responsible for this !! Ban video games !!!

But would it help if we gave them a medal of bravery for this....

With all that racket and guns flying out of holders, it is wise to stay at a safe distance from Washington DC away from trouble.

You may not know that at any moment you could be viewed as a target and some security snaiper may hit you if you make some weird move.

Better be safe than dead. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viPa2E4CHH4

[deleted]

You and the 17 people who upvoted you are the reason people think this subreddit is full of unhinged paranoid lunatics.

Coward. What do you suggest? Make a meme of the cop shooting innocents? That's gonna change the world!

It is, definitely, look at all these comments.

Hard to upvote that but I don't see it going any other way if they keep this up. violence brings more violence.

Which will bring more violence, which will bring more violence, which will bring more violence ad infinitum. Doesn't sound like a solution to me.

I don't see it going any other way, but I also disagree that it will stop the violence. It's evident by now that we've all enabled what is now happening more today. By continually letting them overstep boundaries it has become normal, and there aren't many options on the table as they have taken our voice away from us. They've taken it away by propaganda, by silencing, by underhanded political and legislative tactics, by outright intimidation, and all supported by a majority of apathetic or otherwise ignorant citizens who wouldn't think twice to demonize you if your face went up on the news; another person with mental issues slain by police just doing their jobs.

EDIT: I don't own a gun, and if I did it would be for defense only. I don't think I'd have it in me to kill anyone unless they were an immediate threat beyond reason. I wouldn't kill a cop, but there are people who would and it will start happening if this trend of "shoot first ask questions later" continues.

I agree about how we've gotten here, and there is a place for armed resistance against violent oppression. But increased violence will be met with increased violence. For real change there needs to be a comprehensive movement, MLK needed Malcolm X and vise versa.

Exactly. Scattered pockets of resistance wouldn't do much of anything. It would cause a heavy handed response like we saw in Boston. The recent militarization shows what lengths they're willing to go to maintain what they've got. Fully armored combat vehicles aren't for policing, they're for controlling. I wonder what it would take to change anything at this point.

Disarming.

President Dennis Kucinich and his Department of Peace.

While as a utopian anarcho-idealist I see the possibility, I would not start holding your breath just yet.

And then BAM! Syria

So name a workable, non-violent solution. I'm all ears. Without any repercussions, their behavior will only worsen.

Historically violence has been a part of every revolutionary movement. But that has already begun to change with the Arab spring. And I as a pacifist anarcho-idealist believe that we could move to a place where a massive system like ours could change without violence...some day

However, violence or not, change would require a massive cultural shift. I think that may be a much more difficult aspect than any sort of physical revolution. People need to be less alienated from each other and less apathetic towards one another. The internet almost equally helps and hurts this process. Capitalism has made us cruel and predatory. Religion has given people reasons to ignore reason. And I believe it is all of these things that impose upon us the real fear that allows us to accept this violent world we live in. Historically, one of the necessary conditions for a revolution to succeed is that the society be willing to accept it. And I think we still have a lot of evolving to do as a culture.

As far as solutions, I'm kinda short on specifics right now, but I'll say this:

Be kind. Don't make enemies (particularly when you really should be friends). I think the left can really use this advice. There are so many groups that should unify for common goals and against common enemies. But they can't get on the same page about their major commonalities because of their anger over their minor differences. I think that a lot of people on both /r/conspiracy and /r/conspiratard could learn this lesson. The Iranian dissident movement is a great example. So many groups that can't get together over their common goal of overthrowing the current government because of their differences on what should come next, despite most of them wanting democracy.

So yeah, unity, like queen latifah said.

They're abut to start reaping the whirlwind of very pissed off, desperate and outraged people.

Can any one enlighten me on what this thread is about? I have no clue and would like to know what happened.

Edit: Nevermind I found the story and have become informed.

I liked what you said up until you got to

Maybe she had it coming

and completely decimated any internal consistency you may have had. Your mentality right there is part of the problem you're complaining about.

Didn't she kill one cop?

Nope she didnt. One cop crashed his own car while chasing her and another cop was hurt when she fled but that cop is already out of the hospital and fine. She didn't really hurt anyone but they killed her.

I just watched a liveleak video about it. Why didn't she just pit the car in park and put her hands up? Its not like they were gonna shoot her if she didnt do anything..

she didnt do anything worthy of death, and they did shoot her.

I'm from DC. It can be a very confusing city to navigate through - especially for out-of-towners. It is not beyond belief that she fucked up. Not, is it beyond belief that she was experiencing anxiety from the stress of driving there.
If she were in such a state and a bunch of people were pointing loaded guns into her car that held her infant, I don't find it odd that she would flee.

I don't know this is what happened, but I do know that this COULD be the case, and, I haven't had all the training they the police have had. There is no justification for drawing on, firing at or killing this woman.

Any time any little thing happens that the police can twist into claiming was a threat to their safety, the "act heroically" by slaughtering the person. They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

Imagine if a citizen defended themselves with the same threat threshold as the authorities.

I mean, it was just a random group of people pointing their weapons on her. They were cops. Why would you run away from the cops?

How does anyone know that cops won't shoot. When you have a bunch of guns leveled at you and a kid in the car, what part inside you says "don't worry, it's the police".

the fact that they hadn't shot, and didn't shoot until she ran over someone and began running away shows they weren't going to shoot

Pretty sure of you dont do anything life threatening to the cops or anyone around you, they wont just shoot you. Her response was what made the copa decide to shoot her. Have you seen the video?

If you watch the news and read the paper you can easily come to the conclusion that if cops surround your car with guns out that you about to be harmed no matter what you do.

Hahaha good one. Next time you'll be telling me you wouldnt be shot in the head when you were already in the ground immobilized and handcuffed.

Now stop resisting.

Because mental illness.

What we should be asking is why aren't law enforcement better trained to handle events involving irrational people without always escalating the situation into violence?

Maybe you could stop the car with your head. At least then it would be getting used for something.

Down voted for having to share how it makes YOU feel.

I'm not believing this happened in America....

Fuck whoever downvoted my goddamn comment. I WAS JUST SAYING IT'S UNBELIEVEABLE IT HAS COME TO THIS. JESUS.

Well the only thing I can say to that is when a person uses their vehicle in a manner that either strikes a police officer or places others in danger it meets the standard for use of deadly force. I do not know all of the details, I just saw on CNN that she did hit a secret service police officer.

If I'm a cop and somebody in a 5K lb car hits a barrier, then hits a coworker, and then floors the gas and speeds away...I can't say I wouldn't start shooting. Just saying.

Haha yeah just stand there and get splatted by the crazy lady Mr Policemen. A car is a weapon.

So what? If a cop pulls a gun on you and issues you orders while you are in a car with your kid you can go beserk and attempt to run them down? Crazy logic there.

There is more to this, but the cops on the ground were well within their rights to defend their lives regardless of who was behind the wheel.

This is the point. The first video, there is maybe one point where it might be justifiable to use lethal force (although it would have been more sensible for the police to get away from the car..), once that was over though that justification disappears. Since when is it OK to use lethal force after a threat has ceased? And yes, it may have cost more in terms of material and time, but stopping a car without killing the driver seems to be something the police manage fairly regularly..

Hopefully there is one. The truth is all that is important here. Can't let our dislike of the police force or what they represent colour our perception of reality. =)

A response driven be fear, but albeit not the correct one. Unless martial law is already upon the US...

"Your honor, I feared for my life".

Once again.

I would argue with the poster, but you're doing a good job and saying well enough what I would be saying as well. :)

Ha. Not more glad than I am at not being a cop. That's the last thing I'd want to be.

There it is again, my pet peeve. "Complete drivel. Just saying."

So um...You've essentially said really nothing here - and with pretty bad punctuation at that. Care to attempt to explain how anything I've said qualifies as "complete drivel" in whatever world you come from?

Fair play, is shooting to kill justified in this scenario though?

There is no shoot to stun.

Ok, so if I get shot in the leg, it won't temporarily 'stun' me and I'll die straight away. Thanks for pointing that out for me. Good job.

No. I mean that police training specifically states that you only pull the trigger on a firearm when you intend to kill whatever the firearm is pointed at.

Source: I am POST certified and have to recertify every year. They repeat this about a thousand times during certification.

Edit: also, your response is sarcastic but you don't know what you are talking about. That's not very cool.

Ok, thank you for your reply have an upvote. I understand the meaning of your very brief first comment now.

I will not disagree that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Man I drunk reddited. Sorry for kind of being a dick.

if i'm in the area and possibly at risk of her running me over then yes. kill her before she kills someone innocent.

That's a good question.

It depends on one's reasoning. If one says "That bitch hit my coworker! I'm gonna make her pay!" then absolutely not. The action in retribution is absolutely NOT justified. However, if one were to say "This individual has proven themselves in this moment to be a direct and immediate threat to the public. We must stop the individual from being a continued danger to anyone else in the vicinity." then that logic of stopping the individual is not entirely unsound.

Granted they could have shot out the tires of the vehicle initially to incapacitate further movement and not gone for actually killing the driver themselves, but I don't think that their not having gone for the tires is an immediately damnable thing in and of itself in this particular case.

And can YOU tell from the video if (a)she was armed and (b) if there was a toddler in the back? I can't so how could you, or a cop who thought he was preventing a terrorist or nut-job about to blow up a government building.

I can tell from the video(s) that the police that confronted her with their guns drawn had to see there was a toddler in the car. At least if they had any police education.

I agree with this, doesn't look like the windows are tinted and they were close enough that they should have seen the child, plus, wouldn't shooting out the tires be the first thing they do? Also, I bet it will come out that the kid was also hurt, I find it very hard to believe the car was shot at so many times and the driver was killed but kid completely unharmed. Edit: Missing words

Not to mention she was prolly speaking to the child that was prolly freaking out... Dear god, I hate that we have this much access to info & video sometimes...

Really? Out of all the things that are wrong with what happened there today, video accounts of the event is what upsets you? The media, the police, laws, politicians... These are the things to be upset about.

tires? can we not just shoot the tires...car no go.

How long has it been that /r/conspiracy has turned into get your hate on the USA?

Innocent people don't speed away.

Innocent people with a distrust of police and a small child that they will do anything to protect may do any number of different things including drive away. I'm a mom, my kids being in danger makes me a completely different person.

Her child was only in danger because the cops would soon open fire if she did not stop driving recklessly

There's no defending that at all. If you are going to react like this, shouldn't be anywhere near a vehicle, especially with kids in the car. You're only putting them in danger.

Why was she in a panicked situation? Oh cuz she was running away from 10 cop cars a block from where the president of our nation lives. She was way past the initial instinctive panic situation decisions you're talking about.

Innocent people run all the time in real life sorry to disappoint you. Being scared causes people to flee this is a natural human reaction.

It's 2013. You can control your reactions.

The date has nothing to do with natural human reactions. When someone is truly scared the rational part of there brain shuts off. Some people can control this others cant.

You shouldn't be truly scared. It's national news for a reason. That's not normal.

Hopefully there is one. The truth is all that is important here. Can't let our dislike of the police force or what they represent colour our perception of reality. =)

Suspect could have been innocent as well.

There's no defending that at all. If you are going to react like this, shouldn't be anywhere near a vehicle, especially with kids in the car. You're only putting them in danger.

Her child was only in danger because the cops would soon open fire if she did not stop driving recklessly

I don't see it going any other way, but I also disagree that it will stop the violence. It's evident by now that we've all enabled what is now happening more today. By continually letting them overstep boundaries it has become normal, and there aren't many options on the table as they have taken our voice away from us. They've taken it away by propaganda, by silencing, by underhanded political and legislative tactics, by outright intimidation, and all supported by a majority of apathetic or otherwise ignorant citizens who wouldn't think twice to demonize you if your face went up on the news; another person with mental issues slain by police just doing their jobs.

EDIT: I don't own a gun, and if I did it would be for defense only. I don't think I'd have it in me to kill anyone unless they were an immediate threat beyond reason. I wouldn't kill a cop, but there are people who would and it will start happening if this trend of "shoot first ask questions later" continues.

And then BAM! Syria

TIL they are only able to fire at targets they've used.

So name a workable, non-violent solution. I'm all ears. Without any repercussions, their behavior will only worsen.

Historically violence has been a part of every revolutionary movement. But that has already begun to change with the Arab spring. And I as a pacifist anarcho-idealist believe that we could move to a place where a massive system like ours could change without violence...some day

However, violence or not, change would require a massive cultural shift. I think that may be a much more difficult aspect than any sort of physical revolution. People need to be less alienated from each other and less apathetic towards one another. The internet almost equally helps and hurts this process. Capitalism has made us cruel and predatory. Religion has given people reasons to ignore reason. And I believe it is all of these things that impose upon us the real fear that allows us to accept this violent world we live in. Historically, one of the necessary conditions for a revolution to succeed is that the society be willing to accept it. And I think we still have a lot of evolving to do as a culture.

As far as solutions, I'm kinda short on specifics right now, but I'll say this:

Be kind. Don't make enemies (particularly when you really should be friends). I think the left can really use this advice. There are so many groups that should unify for common goals and against common enemies. But they can't get on the same page about their major commonalities because of their anger over their minor differences. I think that a lot of people on both /r/conspiracy and /r/conspiratard could learn this lesson. The Iranian dissident movement is a great example. So many groups that can't get together over their common goal of overthrowing the current government because of their differences on what should come next, despite most of them wanting democracy.

So yeah, unity, like queen latifah said.

Not police, but Ive seen tactical tire deflation drills practiced by paramilitary contractors before. It is at least a thing.

The cop ran into the security gate. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao3617loZ0k&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAo3617loZ0k

It's just an unorthodox procedure for police to do such stuff and you never heard of police officers shooting at engine blocks or tires during chases or when trying to get someone out of a car. When they were at that moment, they were far more busy trying to get her out of the car then to unload a full clip into the hood of her car hoping it'd be enough to disable the engine or be able to pierce through the hood.

It's just not effective.

This is the point. The first video, there is maybe one point where it might be justifiable to use lethal force (although it would have been more sensible for the police to get away from the car..), once that was over though that justification disappears. Since when is it OK to use lethal force after a threat has ceased? And yes, it may have cost more in terms of material and time, but stopping a car without killing the driver seems to be something the police manage fairly regularly..

Which is what I was saying before Karmapolice came in with his self-righteous attitude: "perhaps there's another explanation".

You're a piece of shit.

If she tried to "crash" through a concrete security gate her car would look like the police car that attempted the same feat. So "crashing" security gate # 2 didn't happen.

As to the first security gate she is accused of "ramming," or in your case "crashing through," where is the damage to her vehicle? If she was trying to gain access to the WH grounds why didn't she exit her vehicle and run through it (with her gun, or whatever she was supposed to be doing)? Why would she bring her child on this mission?

Here's my speculation about the incident: she made a wrong turn into the security roundabout (at the WH). The police probably yelled at her through a loudspeaker or something that it was a restricted area and to leave. Officers, some maybe in plain clothes, immediately come out yelling and pointing for her to leave. Instead of simply continuing on and making the roundabout turn, she tried backing up and leaving the way she came in. A police vehicle came from behind to block her exit this way. She tried going forward to leave the 'correct way' but could not make the complete turn, because her car was askew from trying to back out the way she came in, and bumped or stopped short of the poles ringing the roundabout. All those officers then descended on her pointing their weapons trying to make her exit the vehicle for questioning rather than letting her go. She panicked, backed up, maybe hitting the police car blocking her from behind, and went forward to exit the roundabout the correct way and then fled the police.

I didn't drop the race card to say the police were racist. I am black and we do have a mistrust of police. Even if it doesn't make the news we know that if a cop is pointing a gun at a black man or woman then chances are you will be shot. But as I said this is now applying to everyone who isn't considered important.

How so? The media reports the police stopped the car and she exited the car and they shot her because she was attempting to "flee."

I'm saying on a car.

If she was a legitimate threat, then she may have had weapons or explosives

ohhhh, i see it now. Youre taking the "terrorists under the bed" stance.

It doesnt matter what she did, or how she did it. police are NOT executioners, and they were perfectly able to disable her and her vehicle without killing her. she had a child in the car, several people looking insidethe car, and were INCHES away from their tires. it doesnt matter "what they were thinking", they are equally criminal for man slaughter.

if police are able to stop a car going 80+ down the highway with no casualties and minimal damage to property, then the secret service should be able to stop a car in downtown DC.

Dont justify death by cop, it makes you look bad. we took an alleged bomber to court, we can take a black lady with a car to court.

yep, let's just call her what she was... a terrorist. I mean she definitely could have had weapons or explosives...

SHOTS FIRED, SHOTS FIRED!