A. Pissed off Federal Employee
B. Pissed off partyer/ conservative
C. Pissed off Liberal
D. Islamic or white power terrorists
E. None of the above

F. Crazy person with no real political agenda

Oh, someone shooting people? Probably mentally unstable.

Someone who tried to shut down
The shutdown

Crazy Left=Winger. Majority of shooting in recent years have been Islamic shooters, or people that can be demonstrated to be (if at all political) left/Obama supporters.

krellin just hit a new all-time low.

Please. That is no where close to his all time low.

E. none of the above!

It was the cops!

Although no one won I'm giving Tolstoy vi story by default

That's victory by default

You know, until today I had always assumed that when people said US Capitol they were saying US Capital.

You learn something new every day. Thank you, random shooter dude!

My bads

I hit an all-time low? Why, because I used observation of historical events to answer teh question posed? Fucking idiots - you hate my answer because it's TRUE. What's that make you?

Quick, while the police are busy with the shooting, go see the Lincoln Memorial!

Nope Oct. The U.S. Capital is all of Washington D.C. The U.S. Capitol is the building (what would be called a statehouse in most State Capitals).

No worries krellin we all know your low point was the emotional attention grabbing thread when you emotionally admitted you alcoholism and crap parenting skills for attention. Am I right?

@ Draug

That's what I was saying. Before today I never knew there was such a thing as a Capitol. I'd heard people say Capitol Hill loads of times, but I just assumed they were saying "Capital Hill', which I assumed was the local name for the hill in the capital with the government buildings on... Which it sort of is, but with an o in it.

@ Krellin: On what basis do you define militant Islam as "left wing" ?

At Jamie, when did I say "militant Islam" is left wing? I said no such thing. I said that over the past number of years, shooters and bombers have been Islamic OR left-wingers. NOT generally among the shooters are right wingers or Tea Partiers.

You are confusing the word "or" with "and".

Again...I'm sorry if *facts* offend you, but that's your problem, not mine.

It was the synergy between your first and second sentences. If that's not what you meant, no worries. Thanks for clarifying.

@Oct - I was just clarifying for those who might not have known the difference at that point.

@Jamie - that is not at all what I meant. I do not tie the Democrat/Left to radical Islam 8at all*.

Now...as to the shooter...we can rest assured that it is *not* a person tied to the Republican/right wing politics. Since they have her cold, bloody corpse and therefore know who she is...and we have not yet had a media outlet try to tie her to the right (as their gut reaction always is in the moments after a shooter is identified...) this is the signal that they have a clue...and don't want to discuss it...becuase the left-wing lap dogs don't want to drag their own through the mud.

In the very same manner that...hey...does ANYBODY remember that a couple weeks ago a Left-leaning Obama supporting shooter killed a bunch of folks on a Navy base. The media has been damned near *silent* on that one. Was in a the new a day or two...then nothing. Why I ask you? Don't answer...we know the truth...because if we talk about that story, we might have to examine the radical left motives of the shooter...

Actually, there was loads of news coverage on RT about the navy yard shooting, which doesn't really tie into your theory there at all.

The shooter was nuts, he killed navy employees because they were shooting frequencies into his head. They released that. The reason they haven't talked about it is because no one gives a fuck about government employees as witnessed by draugnars behavior.

I wouldn't rule out right wing motive yet. She crashed her car into the White House barrier and then was shot outside the senate offices

And by left leaning I assume you mean black

@Mendax - what is "RT"? But no...really, as compared to other shooting, the media coverage was minimal.

@Santa - what does "black" have to do with "left leaning"? I fail to see the connection at all. In fact, there are very few black shooters in the media. So...nice try (not really)...but I honestly have no idea what you are suggesting. Was the woman black? If so, I have not heard that. I've actually heard very little about this so far.

Santa is just showing his own racist tendencies by assuming others are racist.

Sure

See he admits he is racist!

Clever

Is it really beyond the US police force's ability to capture suspects? I know it saves a bit of cash with the whole prison and trial thing, but it would be nice to have some of these lunatics interrogated once in a while.

Obama

So, actually, it turns out this woman wasn't a "shooter" at all. She was unarmed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24393775

"Is it really beyond the US police force's ability to capture suspects?"

First off, there is no "US police force." Leaving that aside, when someone crashes into the White House fence and then drives to the Capitol the only responsible thing for law enforcement to do is shoot the suspect. In the heat of the moment, there is no way for them to know whether there's a bomb in the car or something. It turned out this was just some crazy lady, but when it comes to the safety of our elected officials no amount of protection is excessive. There's simply too much at stake.

@ Invictus

I see no reason why US police force isn't a perfectly good term for the collection of state police organisations you get in the US. The UK also has various regional forces (although God knows why), but in practice people treat them as one.

Anyway, to the meat of the argument. No, that isn't the only reasonable thing to do. The suspect has just bounced off the fence. It is instantly clear that, whatever the suspect's plan is, this part of it ain't working. There could be other parts of a bigger plan that are working though. It is not only the moral thing, therefore, to attempt to capture the suspect alive, it is vital to national security.

But leaving Capitol Hill aside, it seems to be the same every bloody time. The Boston marathon bombers are shot up so bad that the survivor couldn't speak if he wanted to. A similar story when that twisted soul attacks the naval yard. Big shoot out of multiple police against one chap, and the chap ends up dead.

There will be times when taking the suspect alive will be too great a risk. There will be times when the situation demands an instant and lethal response. None of these events have been one of those times. The police are failing, are failing consistently, and we should bloody well find out why.

In practice no one treats the various US law enforcement agencies as one. "US police force" is a phantom term. You may as well talk about the "US meter maids" as a distinct organization.

I trust the decisions of these agencies more than your opinions. When someone crashes into the White House fence and then drives to the Capitol you have to shoot them. The number one issue at the time is the safety of our elected officials, and in an emergency like that you can't afford to spend time doing anythign besides ending the threat as soon as possible.

As for the Boston bomber's injury, from what I remember his injury occurred while he and his brother were throwing bombs out of their car at police officers. What would you have the cops do differently in a situation like that? The killing of the naval yard shooter was also entirely appropriate. When a guy is massacring people with a gun the ONLY thing to do is shoot him to make it stop.

Nothing you say about this makes sense.

Invictus - why do you have to go throw in those pesky little FACTS about the suspects shooting back and throwing bombs. That destroys the whole "The US sucks!" dialogue...

You're confusing your Europeans, krellin. I'm one of the pro-US ones.

Meh...

Anyway, you are still 100% wrong in trying to lump all policing agenencies in the US in to a single collective. This, in practice, is *far* from reality. In fact, there have been incidences where local police organization have wanted to enforce US/Federal law, and were specifically told by the Feds that they can not -- such as immigration law in Arizona. So it is not simply a philosophical argument, here - but one in which the actual practice of law enforcement provides ample evidence that there is not a unified US Police force upon which to cast judgement.

In the case of dealing with suspected terrorists incidents would not the practice of one police force be very similar to another? I can imagine there being a huge variety in how forces deal with issues such a prostitution or immigration, but on the big crimes there is surely a high degree of universality?

The finer points of federalism isn't really what's important here. The issue is whether police act appropriately in shooting dead suspects in emergency situations, like when a car's crashed into the White House fence and then speeds to the Capitol. The answer is unambiguously yes, since the duty of the law enforcement agencies involved is to protect people and restore order as soon as possible.

To be honest Octavious, I think it's just your personal ignorance that's the source of your confusion here. This is how any sensible government would protect its most vital offices. You really think if a car crashed into Downing Street and then sped off to Westminster that the police wouldn't shoot the driver? Or if a car crashed into the Elysee and then sped off to wherever the French legislature meets that the gendarme wouldn't shoot the driver? Come on, man. Just think about this for a minute.

Well, given that the apprehension of terrorists is, thankfully, a rather rare occurrence (at as far as the public knows) I don't think there is enough data to say how one police force will act compared to another. That being said, naturally there are standards to behavior in policing - and no doubt you will see similar behavior amongst the police of *any* western country.

I would rather compare the actions of the US and "Western" country police forces to, say, Russian police dealing with a hostage crisis with terrorist, or say the police in Kenya - who by there actions tend to show a much more lax attitude towards collateral damage...i.e. if a few civilians get whacked in the process of killing the terrorists, so be it. This is behavior I do not think you can ascribe to western police forces.

As for the concerns about whether or not a police agency should use deadly force against terrorist suspect that have been known to use deadly force, I think it is a ludicrous suggestion to even imply that we have acted too forcefully.

Major Hassan stood trial for his actions, after shooting people up on a military base. If the "US Police" forces had a tendency to all react in a similar violent manner, I think the good Major would have been spared the show trial. Same with the Bat Man movie shooter, and others.

I don't have a great deal of sympathy for someone gunned down in a shoot out after they have murdered civilians, and I don't think many do.

As for the gunning down of the woman in Washington - something went terribly wrong there, no doubt, but the media isn't really taking about it...the cover up is in play.

Specifically regarding the woman in Washington, you know I'm no fan of President Obama, but I'm glad they took her out, from the perspective that we had no idea if she had a bomb in her car - hell, even a chemical weapon - and that therefore our President could be in danger. There was no idea what she was up to, or what threat she represented, and in such a case the police, in order to protect citizens, and more importantly our President, have a right to shoot her.

What went wrong was a crazy lady did something crazy. I should hope there's at least this much security and the response is at least that immediate and final if there's any threat to the important government buildings in Washington.

@ invictus

A car couldn't crash into Downing Street. It is protected against that sort of attack, as is the Palace of Westminster. A car that has attempted and failed to do so would possibly have its tires shot at (the police at these institutions are armed) and, if the vehicle was being driven directly at police or civilians, they may well attempt to shoot the driver.

Let's be clear. I have little sympathy with the gunman or bomber or whatever. That they end up dead is more or less a just result in my book. What I consider insane is the apparent lack of effort to capture them for the sake of the intelligence they may have, or to better understand the motives of such people so we may better prevent similar attacks in the future.

Once the police have the suspect engaged in a gun battle they have a huge advantage. They have time on their side, unlimited supplies, and far more men. They don't have to take any crazy risks. Just keep him pinned down, shoot to wound if he offers the opportunity, and if not flank him, wait for stun weapons to be brought in, and take him alive.

I'm not going to pretend it's easy, but it can be done with reasonable levels of risk and the rewards have the potential to be huge.

You think the White House isn't? Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm supremely confident the President of the United States' house is better protected than the British prime minister' sand cerrtainly better than Westminster.

Again, it's your ignorance. And, let's be frank, not something to get upset over either. Whatever you or I think has no bearing on law enforcement continuing to do the right thin in these scenarios.