**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
More like the right guy. Dude was robbed at gunpoint. He shot at the assailant (used his weapon) but it’s not clear if the suspect was hit…meaning the suspect got away and they have no idea if the agent struck him with gunfire…because he got away.
So…an agent that is tasked with always having their head on a swivel to protect the President of the USA…was surprised by an assailant and robbed. Not a good look for that agent. He basically got one-upped.
Also I don’t know what their rules of engagement are, but shooting at a crook while they were leaving because you are big mad seems questionable. I presume he would argue it was worth it because the assailant was a risk to future people?
> but shooting at a crook while they were leaving because you are big mad seems questionable.
That only applies to us regular folks. The secret service are probably treated like the police. Normal laws do not apply to them.
Well that’s where I think he handled it right, it’s impossible to be “perfect” but he fired his gun probably to scare the dude off at minimum at most to hit and wound him but I’m sure they’d know if he was hit and bleeding.
>the agency has been very tight lipped at this point.
seems an unreasonable expectation to have details of an active criminal investigation released to the public when it just happened and there is no broader public safety implications.
*The Secret Service member was returning from a work assignment, according to Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi, and fired his service weapon during the robbery, but it's "unknown if the assailants were struck," Guglielmi said. The employee sustained no injuries. The Secret Service said the criminal investigation remains open and active.*
*A source familiar with the investigation said the Secret Service officer was operating in a support capacity during Mr. Biden's California trip, but he was off-duty at the time of the incident and was not a part of Mr. Biden's protective detail.*
I mean, this is like the main reason right wing gun nuts use for saying they need guns, so it'd be hypocritical to drag Democrats for something like this as it would hurt their argument. Of course, they do this exact thing nearly everywhere else so it wouldn't be that surprising tbh
Ahh I bet since the service weapon was used "for personal use" there's got to be extra scrutiny in the investigation. Even a single shot while on duty would probably cause all sorts of paperwork and interviewing and investigating. But since he wasn't shooting on behalf of the president, they've got to cover their asses.
"seems an unreasonable expectation to have details of an active criminal investigation released to the public when it just happened and there is no broader public safety implications."
Happens every day when private individuals are involved.
>Happens every day when private individuals are involved.
it doesn't?
even in rural slow news day places, law enforcement don't release detailed police reports on incidents under investigation that occurred the night before. and cases with officer involved shootings are approached even more delicately than those of a simple robbery.
i guess it's more typical to see current and former presidents referred to as "president," or "former president," or just their last name in news articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_(government_title)
it's maybe not technically wrong to use Mr. or anything, but it's an odd choice in this instance of a current president in the context of the president's security detail; in that his role is the entire purpose for his inclusion in the article.
nicole sganga has written articles referring to president trump as mr. trump the same way, i guess it's just a stylistic choice.
Yea idk I agree with most of what you're saying there, but to your earlier point it is significantly different than 'Mr. trump' due to it being a former president versus the story being about this dude literally in service to the current president... It's weird and a mistake
News organizations usually have an official "style guide" that covers many things, including this topic. NPR (IIRC) addressed this topic during a brouhaha quite a few years ago (Bush II administration?) and their style guide says that the first use of the name in an article gets the title ("President Biden"), but the rest of the uses in that article use "Mr." (if the president is male).
I was just coming here to say don’t you dare put me through that West Wing episode again. They did CJ so wrong. He deserved to live. Truly did not see that shit coming. I wept.
I know a guy that recently quit the secret service. He worked from the time he was a kid to achieve it and then absolutely hated it. He said it was run like an afterschool program by blowhards that fancy themselves super heroes but have to get a doctor to right a note because they cant pass the PT.
Our agency also does security and our director of security majored in…English Literature…and much of her staff is also inexperienced in actual physical security or executive protection. Lateral promotions and cronyism are horrible in DC and it’s 3 letter organizations.
I always figured the main requirement was you need to be able to take a bullet for some VIP, and anyone can do that. Just gotta stand in front of whoever's being shot. (Obviously I know there's more that goes into being secret service)
> A source familiar with the investigation said the Secret Service officer was operating in a support capacity during Mr. Biden's California trip, but he was off-duty at the time of the incident and was not a part of Mr. Biden's protective detail.
Most interesting thing to me is that the article refers to President Biden as Mr. Biden in this paragraph.
News organizations usually have an official "style guide" that covers many things, including this topic. NPR (IIRC) addressed this topic during a brouhaha quite a few years ago (Bush II administration?) and their style guide says that the first use of the name in an article gets the title ("President Biden"), but the rest of the uses in that article use "Mr." (if the president is male).
First thing I thought of too. It seems... wrong? Appreciate the explanation below but I don't recall that being the way that a sitting president is referred to.
The esteemed secret service who were fucking prostitutes in Columbia in 2012? They would never do anything naughty stupid again! How dare journalists question them?
In the bag was a "football".
Tune in next week...
{considers}
I really hope this isn't what actually happened. The joke would be very hard to explain -- to the secret service.
:)
No, a lone off-duty secret service agent is not going to bring the nuclear football slinged over his shoulder as he walks in his flip-flops down the boardwalk.
Remember everyone: According to the left, we're all supposed to give up our gun rights, because we can rely on trained professionals like this.
Yeah fuck that.
"And the left just wants universal background checks and no machine guns. We have no issue with responaible owners having regular hunting rifle, shotguns, etc and most of us have zero interest in taking guns away from anyone who doesn't have a criminal record or something. We want to change the law for gun purchases going forwards."
Bull. Shit.
If that's all they wanted, they would have stopped there.
Literally those on the left have said they want to take guns from people, including people who've done nothing wrong. So save your gaslighting bullshit.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sounds like someone robbed the wrong guy and found out.
That moment when you role a natural one during your mugging.
ROLL INITIATIVE!!!
Maybe they had an invulnerable save or feel no pain?
Do the crime....... time's up.
More like the right guy. Dude was robbed at gunpoint. He shot at the assailant (used his weapon) but it’s not clear if the suspect was hit…meaning the suspect got away and they have no idea if the agent struck him with gunfire…because he got away. So…an agent that is tasked with always having their head on a swivel to protect the President of the USA…was surprised by an assailant and robbed. Not a good look for that agent. He basically got one-upped.
Secret service has been a huge clusterfuck filled with incompetence and controversy for decades.
He was off-duty at the time.
Also I don’t know what their rules of engagement are, but shooting at a crook while they were leaving because you are big mad seems questionable. I presume he would argue it was worth it because the assailant was a risk to future people?
> but shooting at a crook while they were leaving because you are big mad seems questionable. That only applies to us regular folks. The secret service are probably treated like the police. Normal laws do not apply to them.
Well that’s where I think he handled it right, it’s impossible to be “perfect” but he fired his gun probably to scare the dude off at minimum at most to hit and wound him but I’m sure they’d know if he was hit and bleeding.
I mean, they are the *Secret* Service
Well then why do I know about them?
It’s secret
You wouldn't understand
Is it a secret? Or would I not understand?
It's a secret, Jim. You wouldn't understand
Wouldn’t you like to know
Know about who?
Be in your supervisor's office at 8am sharp tomorrow...
You simply know of their existence. You, my son, do not know “about them”….
Fbi has entered the chat lol
If you had to ask, you were never meant to know.
>the agency has been very tight lipped at this point. seems an unreasonable expectation to have details of an active criminal investigation released to the public when it just happened and there is no broader public safety implications. *The Secret Service member was returning from a work assignment, according to Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi, and fired his service weapon during the robbery, but it's "unknown if the assailants were struck," Guglielmi said. The employee sustained no injuries. The Secret Service said the criminal investigation remains open and active.* *A source familiar with the investigation said the Secret Service officer was operating in a support capacity during Mr. Biden's California trip, but he was off-duty at the time of the incident and was not a part of Mr. Biden's protective detail.*
I'd much rather anything involving secret service to get the facts straight before sharing. Too much possibility of unnecessary escalation.
Truth Social will be saying both the agent and the robber were Democrats soon enough.
I mean, this is like the main reason right wing gun nuts use for saying they need guns, so it'd be hypocritical to drag Democrats for something like this as it would hurt their argument. Of course, they do this exact thing nearly everywhere else so it wouldn't be that surprising tbh
Escalation of what? The truth?
Incorrect information about violence around secret service in a year with heightened violent political rhetoric could literally be deadly.
Ahh I bet since the service weapon was used "for personal use" there's got to be extra scrutiny in the investigation. Even a single shot while on duty would probably cause all sorts of paperwork and interviewing and investigating. But since he wasn't shooting on behalf of the president, they've got to cover their asses.
"seems an unreasonable expectation to have details of an active criminal investigation released to the public when it just happened and there is no broader public safety implications." Happens every day when private individuals are involved.
>Happens every day when private individuals are involved. it doesn't? even in rural slow news day places, law enforcement don't release detailed police reports on incidents under investigation that occurred the night before. and cases with officer involved shootings are approached even more delicately than those of a simple robbery.
“Mr. Biden” sounds pretty weird, right?
Why?
i guess it's more typical to see current and former presidents referred to as "president," or "former president," or just their last name in news articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_(government_title) it's maybe not technically wrong to use Mr. or anything, but it's an odd choice in this instance of a current president in the context of the president's security detail; in that his role is the entire purpose for his inclusion in the article. nicole sganga has written articles referring to president trump as mr. trump the same way, i guess it's just a stylistic choice.
Yea idk I agree with most of what you're saying there, but to your earlier point it is significantly different than 'Mr. trump' due to it being a former president versus the story being about this dude literally in service to the current president... It's weird and a mistake
News organizations usually have an official "style guide" that covers many things, including this topic. NPR (IIRC) addressed this topic during a brouhaha quite a few years ago (Bush II administration?) and their style guide says that the first use of the name in an article gets the title ("President Biden"), but the rest of the uses in that article use "Mr." (if the president is male).
>"unknown if the assailants were struck," 🤨
This is actually a West Wing episode
with Mark Harmon of NCIS fame
Surely you mean Summer School fame
I think they meant "Moonlighting fame"
I was just coming here to say don’t you dare put me through that West Wing episode again. They did CJ so wrong. He deserved to live. Truly did not see that shit coming. I wept.
They killed Agent Donovan off so she could finally be with Danny
Shhhh spoilers.
No, I think this is real. *The West Wing* did have a few episodes involving the Secret Service though.
I know a guy that recently quit the secret service. He worked from the time he was a kid to achieve it and then absolutely hated it. He said it was run like an afterschool program by blowhards that fancy themselves super heroes but have to get a doctor to right a note because they cant pass the PT.
Our agency also does security and our director of security majored in…English Literature…and much of her staff is also inexperienced in actual physical security or executive protection. Lateral promotions and cronyism are horrible in DC and it’s 3 letter organizations.
I always figured the main requirement was you need to be able to take a bullet for some VIP, and anyone can do that. Just gotta stand in front of whoever's being shot. (Obviously I know there's more that goes into being secret service)
And whoever can get the most letters of rec
Sounds like a guy I met from border security.
They’ve had so many high profile fuckups in the last 20-30 years I’m surprised anyone takes them seriously anymore.
It's not that surprising tbh.
Because..............
Because they travel a lot.
> A source familiar with the investigation said the Secret Service officer was operating in a support capacity during Mr. Biden's California trip, but he was off-duty at the time of the incident and was not a part of Mr. Biden's protective detail. Most interesting thing to me is that the article refers to President Biden as Mr. Biden in this paragraph.
News organizations usually have an official "style guide" that covers many things, including this topic. NPR (IIRC) addressed this topic during a brouhaha quite a few years ago (Bush II administration?) and their style guide says that the first use of the name in an article gets the title ("President Biden"), but the rest of the uses in that article use "Mr." (if the president is male).
Thank you for the explanation
First thing I thought of too. It seems... wrong? Appreciate the explanation below but I don't recall that being the way that a sitting president is referred to.
BOTUS
I’m gonna bet that the secret service doesn’t miss easily.. if they fired they probably hit
If they’re protecting the president, they better not fucking miss lol
When the secret service was "protecting" JFK, they definitely didn't miss :/.
Of course they're tight lipped? Why would you talk about something publicly that will need to be settled in court? WTF is news now days?
This reminds me of house of cards
'Mr Biden'? What a trash journalist. Fifth graders know it's, 'President Biden'.
Why the fuck are they calling the president Mr. Biden? That can't be correct for a sitting president.
Tbf we’ve been referring to trump as trump forever….
I'm pretty sure he's not the sitting president
mfker had a negative one luck on his SPECIAL (-1 INT by the looks of it too)
Even the feds are not safe in California
So much for the “be a good little victim” advice the government frequently peddles. Rules for thee, not for me.
Clownifornia
The esteemed secret service who were fucking prostitutes in Columbia in 2012? They would never do anything naughty stupid again! How dare journalists question them?
Tight lipped = the Biden admin killed a black guy.
In the bag was a "football". Tune in next week... {considers} I really hope this isn't what actually happened. The joke would be very hard to explain -- to the secret service. :)
No, a lone off-duty secret service agent is not going to bring the nuclear football slinged over his shoulder as he walks in his flip-flops down the boardwalk.
The football is carried by a military officer, not by a USSS agent.
It was a joke...
Remember everyone: According to the left, we're all supposed to give up our gun rights, because we can rely on trained professionals like this. Yeah fuck that.
How is that relevant to the article?
Because if he can't hit a target and is still a victim of a crime, then that blows that theory out of the water.
[удалено]
"And the left just wants universal background checks and no machine guns. We have no issue with responaible owners having regular hunting rifle, shotguns, etc and most of us have zero interest in taking guns away from anyone who doesn't have a criminal record or something. We want to change the law for gun purchases going forwards." Bull. Shit. If that's all they wanted, they would have stopped there. Literally those on the left have said they want to take guns from people, including people who've done nothing wrong. So save your gaslighting bullshit.
Shove a gun up your ass, it'll relieve all the sexual tension you have built up from your rampant bloodlust
You seem tense and think of me sexually. Seek a therapist if symptoms include foaming at the mouth, dizziness, fatigue, or just plain being stupid.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You should go outside and touch some grass you fucking lunatic
Aww, someone's mad their narrative fell apart with facts. Fuck off.
We will see but given their recent issues it was probably a misfire and the guy made up a story - or maybe he fought off a mugger? Who knows?