Slashdot Mirror


Shots Fired At US Capitol

skade88 writes with a report that "The United States Capitol has been put on lockdown after shots were fired. Reports indicate a policeman was injured." From the story: "The FBI was responding to the unconfirmed reports of shots, and a helicopter landed in front of the Capitol. A message from the Capitol Police ordered anyone in a House office to 'shelter in place.' 'Close, lock and stay away from external doors and windows,' the message said." Doubtless more to come on this; watch this space for updates. Update: 10/03 19:08 GMT by T : ABC News reports that the shots followed an attempt to ram the White House gates; the police subsequently shot and killed the driver. Other than that the driver was a woman, the reports adds little detail. Update: 10/03 19:19 GMT by T : Reuters' U.S. Politics Live feed is currently collating many reports from the scene. Of note: the lockdown itself was brief, and has been lifted.

100 of 608 comments (clear)

  1. SEC Suspicious Package by chill · · Score: 2

    Earlier today two entrances to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in downtown Washington, D.C. were closed due to a "suspicious package".

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  2. Isn't it empty? by pseudorand · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's probably just some responsible gun owner assuming that since the government has shut down the capitol should be empty and therefore would be the ideal place for a shooting range since there should be no chance of hitting anyone.

    Seriously though, $10 says it's a U.S. citizen unhappy with D.C. dysfunction. The terrorists wouldn't waste their bullets. They're home watching CSPAN with a bowl of popcorn and thinking "Mission Accomplished".

    1. Re:Isn't it empty? by St.Creed · · Score: 4, Funny

      A disgruntled U.S. citizen shooting at the capitol is a terrorist.

      So you're saying someone who is exercising his or her freedom of expression AND second amendment rights at the same time is a terrorist? You're... un-American!

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    2. Re:Isn't it empty? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      1) It's a woman.

      2) This started with her ramming her car into the White House gate. Then there was the car chase down in the general direction of the Capitol Building.

      3) Shots were fired. Doesn't say whether she shot first or the police did. Given the ramming the gate of the White House and the car chase, could have gone either way.

      4) She was shot, one police officer was "injured". Not sure whether that means he was shot or not.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Isn't it empty? by Wookact · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll take you up on that, so I win your ten dollars which I will use towards the previous bet. Worst case I am out nothing, best case I am up twenty. :D

    4. Re:Isn't it empty? by Teancum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A disgruntled U.S. citizen shooting at the capitol is a terrorist.

      That is a real stretch of the definition of a terrorist. A proper definition of a terrorist would more properly be a group of individuals organized in a para-military or military organization with the express purpose to cause a military revolution or achieve some other political objective through the use of military force. Also noting that in almost every case what you call a terrorist is usually acting with the support (especially financial support) of some sovereign government... usually (but not limited to) governments other than the government currently running the territory where the terrorist is operating.

      America has sponsored many terrorist groups over the years, and still continues to do so.

      A stupid thug committing an ordinary crime is most definitely not a terrorist, and neither is a disgruntled citizen.

    5. Re:Isn't it empty? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Webster's defines terrorism as, "Using fear and the threat of violence to coerce people into certain behaviors."

      Going by the actual definition, there is no terrorist organization larger or more powerful than the U.S. Federal government.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:Isn't it empty? by bobcat7677 · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. Yes, Preliminary reports are that the suspect is a woman who had a child in the car. 2. "ramming" may have been an embellishment. I heard it described more like she "tried to go through the gate" but security stopped her. 3. There is no confirmation if the "suspect" even had any weapons. From the preliminary reports, it sounds like the shots fired were actually fired by the police to stop the car from getting away. 4. It was just clarified by the capitol police chief that the injured officer was NOT shot but rather struck by a vehicle.

    7. Re:Isn't it empty? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1) It's a woman.

      2) This started with her ramming her car into the White House gate. Then there was the car chase down in the general direction of the Capitol Building.

      3) Shots were fired. Doesn't say whether she shot first or the police did. Given the ramming the gate of the White House and the car chase, could have gone either way.

      4) She was shot, one police officer was "injured". Not sure whether that means he was shot or not.

      I'm sure that it was disheartening to the media that it wasn't a right-wing white male militia type they've been waiting for.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    8. Re:Isn't it empty? by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      I would say that an act like this is not terrorism if it does not attempt to push a significant agenda. Random violence, even if against politicians, isn't terrorist (which doesn't make it any better). And even if non-random, if the assailant was furloughed and pissed off about not getting paid, that's more a personal revenge-motive than a political motive -- yes, the furlough was political, but if this was a private corporation that put employees on unpaid leave you could imagine something similar. I don't think it's useful to so dilute the term terrorist that it just means "violent criminal".

      I don't think we know yet what agenda this person had.

    9. Re:Isn't it empty? by alexo · · Score: 3, Funny

      4) She was shot, one police officer was "injured". Not sure whether that means he was shot or not.

      Probably choked on his doughnut.

    10. Re:Isn't it empty? by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No.

      A terrorist is someone who acts to frighten the public at large, often with the aim to incite political pressure on the government to stop doing whatever it is they do to which the terrorist objects.

      A citizen shooting at their government is not a terrorist, but rather a rebel.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    11. Re:Isn't it empty? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2

      We can't allow facts to get in the way of restricting freedom.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    12. Re:Isn't it empty? by mrspoonsi · · Score: 2

      Here is an image of one of the police cars:

      http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70268000/jpg/_70268976_cpshooting1.jpg

      The womans car looks very much undamaged, so possibly that police car crashed into something bigger (lorry)?
      If this woman had mental issues (Post Natal?), perhaps shooting her was not the best option (especially as there is a baby in the car). Ok the police would not know that, but this whole terrorism thing has everyone on edge, in the old days, that car would have been blocked in by other cars and the woman removed, or even road spikes deployed to get the tyres. If it was mental issues, she picked the wrong target sadly, it is protected by heavy armed people just itching to bag a terrorist.

  3. Re:Funny how different news outlets react by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So you are saying that Fox is presenting serious news about issues that will actually affect millions of Americans while everyone else is focusing on pushing hyped-up violence to get eyeballs.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  4. Fox news comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Holy shit, look at people's comments on the fox news article:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/03/us-capitol-in-lockdown-reports-shots-fired/#

    1. Re:Fox news comments by istartedi · · Score: 2

      I like how every time a new comment is posted it scrolls, so I can't actually ready anything.

      No. The best part is how I couldn't see them with NotScript. Then when I enabled two domains for scripting, it revealed a couple dozen more domains that wanted to script, and I still couldn't see any comments.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  5. Re:Zombies. by Garridan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nope, just the lamest attempt at an armed revolution, ever.

  6. Ths important question is by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2

    What color code do we use for this crisis?

  7. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oh, cmon. Is this reddit? Are we supposed to get the CCTV records and look through to try and identify the shooter?

    Sure this is front page news... But why on slashdot?

    Stuff that matters.

  8. Re:If I were a betting man... by intermodal · · Score: 2

    Well if he's not Muslim, he must be a double secret Muslim. Surely you're not unaware of how the propaganda machine works!

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  9. Re:Funny how different news outlets react by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

    I have the screenshot as proof. Or do facts not fit in your world view?

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  10. Re:No, FOX is pushing an agenda. by Teancum · · Score: 2

    What news? That Washington DC has a bunch of criminals (other than members of Congress, their staff, and lobbyists trying to influence all of the above) who shoot up people? It isn't exactly news that Washington DC is also the leading city in America for gun violence.

    From all that can be seen, this is just another stupid street punk that just happened to choose a lousy place to have a high speed car chase in what might be a stolen vehicle. Again, besides the sheer location, is this something that even deserves to be called news?

  11. Re:Zombies. by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't these idiots know the US Federal Govt is shut down...no one is at home, right...?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  12. Re:Funny how different news outlets react by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Funny

    What else would you expect?

    Fox news comments make it really clear who visits that site.

  13. Re:Really? by Wookact · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because this matters, and frankly I prefer to discuss this sort of thing with my fellow slashdotters. Sure maybe we troll each other some, but its head and shoulders better commentary then what you will find on CNN for example.

  14. And Suddenly! by cookYourDog · · Score: 4, Funny

    Divisive American politics appears!

    What do you want to do, [playerName] ?
    [1] Ad-hominem attack against another American political party
    [2] Retreat to echo chamber of own political affiliation
    [3] Accuse other of racism or communism [2 Special skill points]
    [*] Find common ground [Skillset not yet unlocked: need maturity level 5]

  15. Re: Funny how different news outlets react by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    11:05, on fox.

  16. Re:Zombies. by ebno-10db · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You think congress would furlough itself, or at least go without pay until other federal employees start getting paid again? Get real.

  17. Overreaction to road rage by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's starting to look like this: Some woman in an ordinary sedan tried to ram the White House gates. (Which wasn't going to do much; those gates were upgraded decades ago to stop much heavier vehicles.) Then the car went down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol area. Some Capitol Police officer may have been run down. Shots were fired, probably by cops. Others heard the shots and hit the panic button.

    Time for everyone on Capitol Hill to get back to work.

    1. Re:Overreaction to road rage by T.E.D. · · Score: 4, Funny

      Time for everyone on Capitol Hill to get back to work.

      Umm...yeah...Well, about that ...

  18. orly? by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    Someone's pretty mad that the government is shut down. Either that or they thought they could rob the white house while it's closed. Either way, quite the stupid lady.

  19. Re:This just in!!! by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 2

    What an amazing coincidence that shots were fired at the exact same time in both the Capitol and the capital! Who knew?

    --
    I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
  20. Re:Zombies. by tippe · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe she knew that and literally thought that nobody was home and that she could get away with a bit of looting...

    Can't blame her. I imagine that the pres must have a pretty nice TV in there...

  21. Re:It's about time. by Xabraxas · · Score: 4, Informative

    CIA employees have been furloughed. 70% of CIA analysts have been furloughed.

    --
    Time makes more converts than reason
  22. Re:Terrible Advice by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

    It wouldn't do any good unless the staffers and lobbyists join them. Get rid of one corrupt congresscritter (but I repeat myself) and another one will just sprout up. You always have to get to the roots.

  23. Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

    No, the guards are not being paid neither are your brave soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines. They are still required to protect the bums in the house who are still being paid.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  24. Re:Fox removed all their comments by DogDude · · Score: 3, Informative

    FoxNews.com pulled all of their comments about a year ago. That's where *all* of the crazies congregated. Their comment sections were literally nothing but people saying horrible, violent racist things about the president and other people that were not approved by the Right Wing Brain. I used to read them out of sheer amazement at the things that people said. I've never really seen anything like it, except at Glenn Beck's site (TheBlaze.com).

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  25. Re:Really? by TWiTfan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Actually, sometimes I look at comments on FoxNews just for fun. Something like this will probably have a good cross-section of commenters claiming:

    A) Black helicopters were spotted in the area beforehand
    B) Barack Husein Obama staged the whole thing himself for sympathy, no doubt using his Muslim Atheist friends
    C) ...and this is why we need to get rid of government and taxes.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  26. STOP THE PRESSES! by idontgno · · Score: 2

    There's been GUN VIOLENCE in the District of Columbia!

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  27. Re:If I were a betting man... by Antipater · · Score: 2

    Remember, Muslims are allowed to lie to infidels! Therefore, every shooter is a Muslim.

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
  28. Re:Fox removed all their comments by Nimey · · Score: 2

    Yahoo News's comments are/were the same way.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  29. Re:Really? by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because this matters, and frankly I prefer to discuss this sort of thing with my fellow slashdotters.

    Why? Not why do you prefer, but why at all?

    This isn't a technical issue where debate can come to a good understanding of a problem, or resolve some issue for someone who has a question. The only possible outcome from discussing this here is the inevitable flame war when it turns political. Each side will score points for their side, leaving the people in the middle wondering why this kind of stuff is relevant to techies in general and why does it always devolve into flames and insults.

    Who done it and why isn't the topic for a debate. Who done it won't change if someone makes a really good point about reaction of the suppressed masses or creates a fictional similarity to some other even at some other time. Why it was done won't change, only points will be scored by the "Republicans drove her to it" (she drove herself, pun intended) or "racism" or "tea party this or that" sides as they award themselves points for one-upmanship.

    In truth, this event has very little impact on techies per se, even if a few care a lot because they live in their parent's basement which is next door to the White House. We've lost the concept that every topic isn't technical in nature just because someone who is technically inclined finds it interesting. I'm sure that some ./ers knit, but that doesn't make the latest news about knitting either "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters (to nerds)."

  30. Michelle Bachman finally snapped? by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 4, Funny

    the warning signs were pretty obvious

  31. Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

    As are other essential or outside funded employees. It is against federal law to force people to volunteer their time as employees. If a federal worker is on the job today, he's being paid.

  32. Re:Really? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    Because this matters, and frankly I prefer to discuss this sort of thing with my fellow slashdotters...

    It had NOTHING to do with the current budget situation. But it matters... So we are to discuss every cop shootout on the front page?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  33. Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Several federal employees who are on the job today are only getting paid once an appropriation is approved. Until that time there is no paycheck coming. I'm a current federal employee who has been told to report.

  34. Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, because there were so many clear and excellent choices that it is mind boggling that the US citizens didn't pick them! News flash. Getting a vote isn't the same as being able to choose between the douchebag and the hero. In the last decade it was a choice of: Would you like this complete douchebag, or this even bigger douchebag?"

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  35. Re:Really? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Its a strange phenomenon really, but a lot of Nerds these days pay taxes, vote, and would like to know if the White House is under seige. Weird, I know.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  36. Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The government increased "security" expenditure on the shutdown. I heard that the cost in locking down and patrolling national monuments in DC exceeded the cost of keeping them open but they were shut to prove a point. We are spending more money to be shut down that it would cost to keep running, for at least some things. And we still could hit the debt ceiling and default for the first time ever on the National Debt. Nothing could be better. Once we default on $1, our credit rating will drop and we'll finally be forced to pay off some of it or default on it all. Oh how I wish we'd just default on it all and start over. It's the SS generation that got us into this. And they leave it for us to pay it off for them while paying their SS.

  37. Re:Really? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sure this is front page news... But why on slashdot?

    My honest (and exceedingly cynical) answer: because the government will latch onto any event like this to further curtail what the rest of us are allowed to do under the guise of security, and it will have a run-on effect in other areas.

    My best guess, they'll push back the secure area around the White House, and even more of DC (or anything even close to a government building) will be under lock down more often, and they'll give themselves heightened powers to stop things like this.

    Give it a little while, and there will be new secret regulations saying they can stop and detain anybody in a car to question them to be sure they don't plan on trying something like this.

    It sounds very tinfoil hat, but I've started to conclude that the most paranoid/cynical interpretation tends to come true over time.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  38. Re:Really? by InlawBiker · · Score: 2

    Because all the other news outlets are whoring for eyeballs, why not Slashdot?

  39. Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) by Eunuchswear · · Score: 3, Informative

    Maybe I'm wrong, but usa.gov says:

    Hundreds of thousands of Federal employees including many charged with protecting us from terrorist threats, defending our borders, inspecting our food, and keeping our skies safe will work without pay until the shutdown ends.

    Ok, that seems not to include the armed forces, but it does say people are working without pay.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  40. Re:Only two days of government shutdown ... by mdsolar · · Score: 2

    Or count...

  41. Automatic barriers by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    I got a kick out of the ABC article description of cops and secret service vehicles wrecking on those automatic barriers they've placed around DC. It sounds like the perp's vehicle made it over the barrier, triggering it to pop up just in time to disable the pursuing cops. Good thinking there.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  42. Re:Really? by Ardyvee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All you have said is very true. Except on the fact it is not an inevitability for it to turn into a flame war. Your very post has showed it. You managed to formulate a level-headed opinion about why the discussion is pointless because most discussion would center around irrelevant information. Of course, it ignored the fact that people have this desire to know those very pieces of irrelevant information -- although, thinking better about it, maybe knowing about it would help us learn about it and avoid the loss of life in the future? Nah, who am I kidding. We only care about it to have something to talk about when there is nothing else to talk about, in order to avoid silence. It'll soon be mostly forgotten by most, who will never think about it again unless somebody else mentions it.

    Now, to be honest. Shots fired at US capitol? That's news. Why would it ever reach a political flame war is beyond me (if I assume, of course, that we always behave rationally), since Shots fired at US capitol has little to do with politics beyond what drove the whoever to do whatever (in this case try to ram the door, me thinks). And if we are going to discuss the cause of the behaviour, there is little to discuss in politics: the reasons do not need to be grounded in reason, and debating the merits of the reasons as valid politics is a jump too far from topic, bordering going off-topic which is shoots fired.

    But then again, you can talk about cheese, reach cheese production, regulations on cheese productions, how hard those regulations make it for new small players to enter the market, and suddenly you are talking about politics again. Which teaches us that nothing is apolitical, unless you are talking about the laws of the world. And that's because they just are, no matter how much you argue they are unfair/against your preference.

    --
    I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
  43. Re:Really? by SGDarkKnight · · Score: 3, Funny

    no worries, she was proably using apple maps and followed the directions a little too closely

    --

    ...A no smoking section in a restaurant is like having a no peeing section in a swimming pool...
  44. Re:Zombies. by anagama · · Score: 2

    Suicide more likely.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  45. Re:Really? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    The funny thing is that the latest I saw was that there were no shots fired. They killed the "suspect" for shooting who was unarmed. The gunshot sound was from someone chasing her who hit a barrier. A second car was also damaged from hitting a barrier. She was shot and killed with her kid in the car, unharmed. But then, at this point, it's all guesses from people who know that the most outrageous story will get them on the news, and the truth isn't related to their ability to get on the news.

  46. Re:Zombies. by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Informative

    They've declared themselves essential and thus continue to get paid.

    Also, they refuse to go with health insurance provided by ACA (obamacare), it isn't good enough to satisfy them. Really.

    Also, they get automatic raises every year, but I think most people are aware of that.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  47. Re:Really? by TWiTfan · · Score: 2

    Hey, lighten up. Would you rather be discussing a story on Oracle's latest earnings report, or a Slashvertisement for some new "revolutionary" piece of tech that's never going to materialize?

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  48. Re:Really? by excelsior_gr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because this matters

    No, it doesn't. Just because some looney decided to ram the gates of the White House and get herself killed doesn't mean that there is something to discuss. There is no political meaning, no background story, it isn't even funny. Even if there is a deeper cause behind all this it will get covered up and we will never learn of it, unless some deepthroat/whistleblower decides to enlighten us, in which case it will become interesting. For the time being, however, there is nothing to discuss, move along.

    Having said that, this is why I love reading the news (online and in print) instead of watching them on TV: one can skim over the headlines and only read the interesting bits. So the GP also didn't have a point.

  49. Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

    There are primaries and third party candidates. If there are congressional seats where law is "Each of two major parties selects a candidate through a secret closed process without voter participation, and those are the only two candidates allowed," then yes, you have a point, but I don't think that's actually the case anywhere.

    Voters usually have a lot more than two choices. It's just that the choice they usually make is "Ignore everything but the very last vote, and usually ignore that too." That's a choice. Maybe "...who voted in such a way that this was going to happen" should be changed to "... who did or did not participate in politics in such a way that this was going to happen" would be more fair.

    Whatever phrasing you prefer, my point is still that people always get the government they deserve. And that IS true in America right now as well.

  50. Re:That is what you get... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2
    No. This is what we get for not respecting and upholding the right to bear munitions. The government does what it wants, screws the people, and the few people who do what our founding fathers did get labeled nut jobs by the very people they are brave (or crazy) enough to stick up for.

    " It's most likely some gun-nut teapublican protesting being "disrespected" at not being able to get his way and using a gun to get attention."

    So you think that after successfully shutting down the government, they now want to protest their own actions?

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  51. tragedy of errors? by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like all the shooting was police or Secret Service. Car impact, female with babe in a car with out of state plates, chased, and shot ?

    What if she was lost, confused and just made a wrong turn while talking on her cell phone, surprised by the barrier?
    Perhaps the true price of paranoia.

    1. Re:tragedy of errors? by arth1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Perhaps she should have tried the white house instead.

      Perhaps you should have tried following the news before mouthing off. She did crash into the gate to the White House, and cops went after her, chased her to the Capitol building where the car was stopped, and the cops shot her repeatedly.

    2. Re:tragedy of errors? by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Then that means you deserve to die according to DC police and the secret service.

      Honestly, It's BS that they started shooting at her.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:tragedy of errors? by nbauman · · Score: 2

      What if she was lost, confused and just made a wrong turn while talking on her cell phone, surprised by the barrier?

      Yes. And there are several commonly-used drugs which can cause delirium. There's one drug used used by people who are going into areas where malaria is common, for protection against malaria. There are other drugs that cause delirium and panic. There are a few other medical reasons why somebody could be acting like that. And people just panic. That doesn't justify killing them.

      About the time of the Rodney King case, I read in a magazine for police management that car chases are a big problem. Cops get into a chase, they get all pumped up, the chase ends with the car getting smashed up or something, the cops go out and attack the guy. They recommend that the commanders get cops who weren't involved in the chase to arrest the suspect.

      Cops are authorized to use deadly force only if they're facing a threat to somebody's life. Otherwise, using deadly force is some degree of homicide.

      There have been a few incidents in in New York City where cops killed somebody who (in my reading of the facts) could have been captured alive with little or no risk to the cops. The cops usually claim that they saw a gun (even though there was none), or that they believed their life was threatened (which are the magic words to justify the the most indiscriminate killing), and they usually get off on criminal charges.

      There was a really bad case of a cop in upstate New York. There was an elderly (black) guy who had some dementia, and had a lifeline emergency service installed. The alarm went off and the service called an ambulance, and 911. The cop who responded had a long acrimonious relationship with the elderly guy. The elderly guy said that he had no problems, and he wanted to cancel the call. The cop refused to cancel it, and insisted on breaking down the door. On the recording, the cop was taunting the guy. The guy tried to defend himself with a kitchen knife, and the cop shot and killed him. The cop was tried and acquitted.

      So I would bet, dollars to donuts, that the cops will say that they thought their lives were threatened in some way, and maybe they'll use the standard excuse that they thought they saw a gun.

      There's another philosophy that a cop is getting paid to take risks, and part of his job is to protect lives, even at a small risk to his own life. I know a cop who confronted a man with a gun and told him to drop the gun, repeatedly, and then shot the man (who lived). But that doesn't happen consistently.

  52. Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I get paid on the last working day of the month. If I were to start complaining that I'm not paid to work the other days because I didn't immediately get handed a check at the end of each day, and had to instead depend on a promise to be paid at the end of the month for work I do today, everyone would laugh in my face.

    If I get told that I'm going to be paid biweekly, and then all of a sudden one payday I'm told "yeaaaaaaaah, your paycheck isn't going out this time, but don't worry, all the money will be there in the next one, unless that one also doesn't happen in which case you'll just get three at once in a month and a half", I'm allowed to be pissed off about that.

  53. Re:Really? by anagama · · Score: 2

    Don't forget all the extra communication monitoring the will be necessary now.

    If the woman was a muslim immigrant or visitor, that will provide an excuse to harass and violate the rights of our new favorite category for discrimination.

    If the woman was a white suburban soccer mom, that will prove that the Feds need to monitor everyone, not just select a group for special discrimination.

    If she was religious or political, it will provide an excuse to monitor religious groups or activists even more.

    If poor, inflict further draconian prison sentences for minor infractions and increase monitoring.

    The list can just keep going. No matter who she turns out to be or why she did what she did, it is going to provide the Federales an excuse to further curtail civil rights even though nobody was in any real danger because of the physical barriers - except for the cops injured by deploying those very same barriers.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  54. Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can be opposed to Obamacare and still want socialized medicine. Forcing someone to make a private purchase or pay an exorbitant penalty is a much bigger trampling on rights than just having taxpayer-funded healthcare. It's true that this isn't the majority Republican reason for being opposed. But it's a good reason that a lot of Democrats should have been opposed.

  55. Re:That is what you get... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...for enshrining the "right" to bear arms in your constitution. "Gun control? Fuck no, we have the right to wear guns and shoot things, goddammit! Zomglol bless Murrica!"

    It's looking more and more like all the shots fired were by the Police...

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  56. Re:Funny how different news outlets react by Talderas · · Score: 2

    Once the dust settles it will be amusing to see that all the shots were fired by police.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  57. Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) by T.E.D. · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's actually too generous.

    The real issue is that voters don't actually pick their candidates anymore; its the other way around. Every 10 years when the census is done, all the states have to redraw their congressional districts. What happens in most states is that whoever controls the state legislature gets to do the drawing. They get maps and their state's entire voter registration database out, and make a modern computer-aided science of drawing things so that as many districts as possible are packed full of their party's registered voters. Any districts that have to go to the other party are drawn to look like malaria germs so that they scoop up every voter possible from the other party. Ideally those opposition districts will have more voters in them too. The idea is to give voters from the other party as little voice in government as possible.

    In other words, nearly every voting district in the country is designed to be a "Democratic" district or a "Republican" district. The only true election happens on primary day, and nobody from the other side of the political spectrum gets a vote. So you end up with a Congress packed full of extremists. Extremist congressmen don't give a damn which party won or lost the last election, because their own seat is safe either way. All they have to worry about is that someone more extreme than them will challenge them in the next primary.

    TL;DR: elections don't matter

  58. Re:Zombies. by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I honestly don't care about the pay stuff. The more they get paid, the harder they are to bribe. That's fine.

    But the refusal to use ACA it a structural problem. The whole damn point of the USA is that we don't have a ruling class who gets to live by a different set of rules than the peons. It's bad enough piling on law after law faster than anyone can keep up with what's legal, but when it all doesn't work out acceptably, the right answer is to change the law until you find it acceptable. Once the rulers start saying the rules don't apply to them, or their friends and donors (but I repeat myself), with a waiver here and selective enforcement there, all hope is lost.

    I'd almost call that feudalism, except in feudalism tradition demanded the noble class provide a lot for the serfs - not a good deal for the serfs, but not entirely one way. We don't have that spirit today, so if we allow a ruling class to form that's above the law that applies to the commoners, it will end badly indeed.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  59. Re:Really? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

    Except on the fact it is not an inevitability for it to turn into a flame war.

    Oh, come on. If you've read /. for more than a month you've seen it happen more than once. At this point, it's like predicting that the sun will come up in the east tomorrow morning sometime around sunrise. Or that dropping a hammer on your foot will hurt because gravity sucks.

    Of course, it ignored the fact that people have this desire to know those very pieces of irrelevant information --

    Nope, didn't ignore that at all. For those folks there are the news websites. All the information you'll get here will be either blatant supposition ("It was probably a teapublican..." one commenter says) or second hand ("over on CNN they say ...").

    People are free to read multiple websites. The reason for specialization is so that not everyone has stuff they don't have any interest in they have to sort through.

    Now, to be honest. Shots fired at US capitol? That's news.

    Didn't say it wasn't. But for at least me, I say ... so what? There is nothing in that "news" that has any direct impact on me right now, and I can easily wait until I read the paper or pull pull up a news website to learn about it. By that time, all the initial nonsense reporting will have died down and there will be a good idea of what happened. I won't get drawn into speculation about Muslims and he/she and/or kid in the car or/and an escaping driver and how many shots were or weren't fired.

    If you can honestly say that immediate knowledge of every supposition and clue as it comes in is important to you, I'd guess that it isn't because you are a nerd, it's because you are close to the action and need to duck.

    Why would it ever reach a political flame war is beyond me (if I assume, of course, that we always behave rationally),

    Welcome to /.

  60. Re:Zombies. by jergantic · · Score: 2, Funny

    The President lives in the White House, not the Capitol building.

    Anyway, the gunman should've known that they'd need to get elected or register as a lobbyist before they could get away with looting the federal government. There's a process!

  61. Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nothing different at all

    You change your pay schedule. By weeks. See if it doesn't fuck with your bills that don't change.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  62. Re:Really? by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

    Step aside child, you are not yet courageous enough to brave the Flame War, nor logical enough not to click the link if you don't want to read it, nor smart enough to utilize the filter options... When you've grown up, experienced the world, learned to take the good amidst the bad, then your voice will be more valuable.

  63. Re:Zombies. by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How, exactly, would the body that needs to reach an agreement to open government, go on furlough until government reopens?

    How would that work?

  64. Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

    Youre in a country of 300 million. Perhaps the decision to have states with separate laws was a really good idea, if you feel like the federal government isnt representing your needs well. Heres a thought, maybe we could stop making everything a federal issue and the quality of the president wouldnt be so life-and-death?

  65. Re:Funny how different news outlets react by green+is+the+enemy · · Score: 2

    Hmm.. smells like a troll.. Ignoring a possible threat to the White House or the Capitol is not something a self-respecting news organization would do. This definitely takes priority (for a short time) over the dragged out debate on government spending. Looks like they fixed their front page.

  66. Re:Zombies. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I honestly don't care about the pay stuff. The more they get paid, the harder they are to bribe. That's fine."

    Well, first off I agree with the other poster who said it makes them not care. But I will go further: pay that is too high (and cannot be revoked) makes them also not care what other people make.

    The salaries of Senators and Representatives should be tied to the median incomes of everybody in the United States. Note that is the median income, not the mean, because a relatively few, very rich people skew the mean by a long way. (The other common method of averaging, the mode, is ridiculous in this context and need not be considered.)

    That will give them an actual incentive to see that the income of everyday Americans stays at a decent level. And it should also be in dollars adjusted for REAL (not the current, bogus, weasel method of calculating inflation that the government currently uses). That would remove much of the incentive to fudge the figures by inflating the dollar... as they now do.

    "The whole damn point of the USA is that we don't have a ruling class who gets to live by a different set of rules than the peons."

    Agreed. They should be bound by ALL the same laws as other citizens. No special privileges. The latter, yet again, just gives them motive to not care much about everybody else.

  67. Re:Zombies. by fizzer06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The more they get paid, the harder they are to bribe."
    It hasn't worked out that way. All that money and power attracts the worst types of people. Too much is never enough for them.

  68. Re:Zombies. by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

    It does if you want to give yourself a raise without having anyone be able to say "No, stop that."

    Anyone today can say "no, stop that". The congress could tomorrow vote to rescind the automatic pay raises; that would be a meaningful "no, stop that". The amendment says nothing about automatic pay raises, nor does it make them necessary.

    An honest congress could vote every so often to say "after the next election for each seat, the person holding that seat will receive a raise of X". That's allowed by the amendment. Thus, QED, automatic is not necessary.

    What makes automatic pay raises necessary is not that amendment, but the political suicide that would accompany any vote to raise pay. Anyone who voted to raise their pay would have it used in the next election against them. As it stands, since the congressional leadership won't allow the a bill to rescind it, nobody can be blamed if they don't vote to cancel automatic raises when there was no vote held on the matter.

  69. Re:Funny how different news outlets react by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and the BBC all have big, front page pictures and caption for this story.

    The lone holdout? The Fox tabloid with a small banner above their big story asking the question: Can We Do Without It with graphics for HUD, Ed. Dept, IRS and NASA.

    And, with it looking more and more like the police got overexcited and gunned down an unarmed woman, it's looking more and more like Fox was right to not play this as a "big front page pictures and caption for this story"....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  70. Re:Funny how different news outlets react by locopuyo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thanks, I always wondered what does the fox say.

  71. Re:Zombies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or she was trying to navigate to the nearby super market with her iphone.

  72. Murder by MrL0G1C · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, given the choice between disabling the car, boxing her in and arresting her or just shooting her, they shot her. How the fuck is that ok? That's called murder where I come from.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    1. Re:Murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US government likes to murder. It does it all the time.

    2. Re:Murder by LeeRyman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know about anyone else, but I found it very disturbing when police shoot an unarmed woman with child (okay, you could consider she was armed with her car) and the response of the people who run the country is to applaud and congratulate them on the outcome. I personally cannot think of any situation in which someone shoots and kills someone else in which applause is an appropriate response. Recognition of duty, and perhaps somber soul-searching as to why it could happen is warranted, but applauding the unfortunate outcome is not.

  73. Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) by tbannist · · Score: 2

    If the makeup of Congress matched the actual votes cast during the last election, this wouldn't be happening. The Democrats got 1.7 million more votes than the Republicans across the country, but because of gerrymandering*, they got 33 fewer seats. Actually, if the Republicans weren't also enforcing an anti-democratic rule that only laws that most of the Repbulican party supports can even be voted on at all, this wouldn't be happening either.

    Most americans aren't actually getting the government they voted for, they've been robbed by partisan maneuvers.

    * Yes, both parties gerrymander and it should be counted as vote fraud regardless of who's doing it.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  74. Re:Zombies. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Employees can not use employer insurance subsidies to purchase Obamacare, only insurance through their employer. The exemption in question specifically permits members of congress to do just that: use their employer's (that is us, via our tax dollars), insurance subsidy to purchase Obamacare.

    Do you know that this issue, the requirement that congress people and staffers have to seek insurance on their own through the public exchanges, was put into the bill by the Republican Senator Grassley, who meant it as a "poison pill". To his chagrin, the House let it stand and now they're blaming the President.

    It is just a right-wing meme that there is some "exemption" for congress. They get insurance the same way we do, except they are subsidized, just as they were before Obamacare was passed.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  75. Re:Zombies. by plurgid · · Score: 4, Informative

    you guys have got to be kidding or you've got to be really disconnected from reality.
    almost *every single* member of congress is already *at least* a millionaire. No shit:

    http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/new-congress-new-and-more-wealth.html

    and it's not like this is even a new thing. It's been this way a LOOONG time.
    So if you honestly think that the salary these d-bags are pulling is anything more than tip money for the golf caddy to these guys you're living in a fantasy land.

  76. Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) by tompaulco · · Score: 2

    This happened to me where I work right now. Literally on the day that we were supposed to be paid, it was announced that they didn't have the money to pay us, but the would get us paid later that week, or whenever an expected check from a customer came in.Of course, by that day, it was too late to cancel any automatic payments for mortgage, utilities, etc. that were due to occur on that day. They also knew in advance that this could be an issue but decided not to tell anyone because they knew that would damage moral, so they just hoped the check would come in before payday. It didn't. Of course, moral was blown by even more for them not telling anybody that this could happen. The upshot of this was that I literally lost about a hundred dollars due to late fees, NSF fees and interest.
    The lesson here is never work for a company unless you are independently wealthy and not actually dependent upon getting a paycheck from them on a timely basis.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  77. Re:That is what you get... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's looking more and more like all the shots fired were by the Police...

    It is looking even more like:

    1) a distraced mother with a baby in the backseat took a wrong turn driving in DC
    2) accidentally ran into some low-visibility short-height pole barriers
        (see this view on google streetview)
    3) was confronted by plain-clothes police brandishing firearms
    4) was scared shitless for herself and her baby and took off
    5) was chased for a while until she got out of the car
    6) was shot dead

    To me, this looks like a case of cops who have been militarized to the point of neglecting training on de-escalation. Hyped to believe that terrorists are hiding under every rock, they over-reacted when they should have realized that it was just the far more likely scenario of a regular citizen finding herself in an unfamiliar and threatening situation.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  78. Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

    Guess what? Most federal employees don't get paid monthly.

    Not only "most Federal employees" but by far most people in the country aren't paid monthly. Seems like virtually everyone is biweekly with some paid weekly and a VERY small minority paid monthly.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  79. Re:Really? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    Hey, lighten up. Would you rather be discussing a story on Oracle's latest earnings report, or a Slashvertisement for some new "revolutionary" piece of tech that's never going to materialize?

    You have a point.

    Carry on...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  80. Re:So the guards are still getting paid? :) by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    SS is solvent, but those collecting SS now are the ones that voted in Reagan and showed that treason wins elections (Reagan committed treason in 1980 to beat Carter, giving material aid to our enemy, with the knowledge and aid of Bush, and did so again in 1987, and Bush, provably involved in two acts of treason was not only not impeached, but elected). And Reagan tripled the debt, only to have his VP elected. The message was "we like debt". The Boomers got old, they liked voting in the people that promised them the most at the expense of the Gen-Xers, and blamed the Gen-Xers for being whiners when they found they inherited a country fundamentally broken and deep in debt.

  81. Re:That is what you get... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

    What would you like the cops to do when, after drawing weapons and ordering a suspect to get out, they instead spin their wheels and drive off?

    You do understand that the reports are that she did eventually stop, did exit the vehicle and then was shot. How do you reconcile that with the above?

    Have you run the numbers on that?

    Yes I have. There have been precisely zero attempted attacks there - ok there was a crazy guy who tried to climb the fence a few years back, but he was just crazy not malicious. That makes pretty much every other scenario more likely. However, I do find your hyper-specific categorization disingenuous to the point of being intellectually dishonest.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.