Capitol Hill shooting

I guess it's our mentality. We don't just grab our pitchforks and attack what we don't like. People here know that if you are trying to bring the system down by force, the system will answer with force. There's a rotten idiot here and there, but those just want to see the forest burn. And attack policemen at protests so they have an excuse to attack back.

There hasn't been a single life-threatening attack or attempt towards our leaders since like... The dictatorship like 40 years ago.

I think we could have said much the same thing about the USA pre 9/11. Columbine and Ted Bundy were highly irregular incidents and people really had no worries about attacks. The train bombings in Madrid did not have nearly the same effect as the plane crashes did for us. I don't really know enough about Spain to begin to understand why, but we've developed a very strong need for visible security here. We don't "live in fear", but we've forcibly become much more aware of the possibility of attacks and have responded very strongly. Maybe too strongly in some cases.

As much as I hate to see someone killed, especially someone that may have had mental health issues, I think the police made the right call here. The driver was very clearly a danger to the public. There was a very strong possibility that someone could have been hit by the car and this was averted. We can second guess this for eternity and maybe further evidence will change my opinion, but I think they made the right call this time.

[COLOR="#cc8899"]
I don't know where you're getting "ruled by fear" from. If anything we're ruled by arrogance lol. I live in Seoul and work both in Seoul and at the Korean DMZ. I stare in the face of what an oppressive, fear-based government looks like in North Korea every. Single. Day. America's petty political squabbles don't even rate on that scale. Then there's countries like China with extreme censorship, disappearances/imprisonments of political dissidents. Syria and the like where there's an ongoing war between oppressive, heavy-handed governments and oppressive, heavy-handed rebel groups. [/COLOR]

You have a point, although in my opinion, the fact you had to compare US with North Korea and China already speaks a lot about the state of things.

At least from European perspective, the whole NSA surveillance program, torture, government corruption, hidden war crimes, imprisonment of people in different facilities for questionable or no reasons, questionable death sentences and last but not least the dictatorship of 2 political parties are nothing to be very proud of. The difference between North Korea and USA is that North Korea is a tiny troll-dictatorship, while USA is a superpower with huge responsabilities. More and less recent events have clearly shown that USA is not the free and democratic country they so proudly promote across the globe. US also has a history of disrespecting/not living by the rules of United Nations.

Back to topic: Not knowing much about this particular case but in general I've noticed it seems to be the common practice in the States to shoot a gunman/criminal dead instead of having them on trial and investigating what happened afterwards. In many other developed countries, police will always only shoot to wound and if the target is killed, there's usually (if not anything else) at least a debate over what happened.

she did something we here in the United states like to call suicide by officer.


she took actions that would lead to a lethal response.

we can argue how we think things should have gone until the sun goes out but it's not going to change the fact that what happened happened.

what I'm more interested in is what's going to happen with the child.

You have a point, although in my opinion, the fact you had to compare US with North Korea and China already speaks a lot about the state of things.

At least from European perspective, the whole NSA surveillance program, torture, government corruption, hidden war crimes, imprisonment of people in different facilities for questionable or no reasons, questionable death sentences and last but not least the dictatorship of 2 political parties are nothing to be very proud of. The difference between North Korea and USA is that North Korea is a tiny troll-dictatorship, while USA is a superpower with huge responsabilities. More and less recent events have clearly shown that USA is not the free and democratic country they so proudly promote across the globe. US also has a history of disrespecting/not living by the rules of United Nations.

Back to topic: Not knowing much about this particular case but in general I've noticed it seems to be the common practice in the States to shoot a gunman/criminal dead instead of having them on trial and investigating what happened afterwards. In many other developed countries, police will always only shoot to wound and if the target is killed, there's usually (if not anything else) at least a debate over what happened.

Lol, what a joke. Yeah, we shoot everyone dead which is why we don't have one of the Boston bombers in custody right now. America is no where to oppression by the government, and you want to bring a comparison of europe into this? At least our citizens don't get publicly beheaded, an entire island massacred with a ridiculous capped sentence, nor end up destroying public property for the hell of it.

Must be nice living in a country where everyone can be counted on to be level-headed all the time.

What, you prefer to live thinking there's a potential suicide bomber living on the house next to yours?

Trust nobody. Shoot first. All it takes to survive.

Here, we don't think that way. It's quite simple. But then again, it's hard to explain the way of thinking things. On the other hand, though, there's a lot of awful people here, too. If that's what you were implying on the video. But not enough to fear them.

One of the purposes of using InfoWars as a source was for me to observe the general Southperrian reaction to its "extremist" interpretation of another incident of police brutality. As expected, I received very negative responses when I posted links to an alternative media source that approaches the topic from a different angle. If, instead, I had posted links to The Washington Post or The New York Times (news sources that most people would regard as neutral, when in fact they're actually biased too), or if I had named the title of this thread to one that does not sound so controversial, this sort of reaction would not have been exhibited.

You have been trained to instantaneously perceive your typical mainstream media (which does include those seemingly "credible" newspaper articles such as the ones I just referenced above) as a "reliable source", and all other sources as radical, misinformed, and having no basis. Then, I am subsequently attacked for "not having done enough research", or labeled as a mere conspiracy theorist. (I didn't even give my own opinion toward how I feel about this incident, or why I decided to choose these sources in particular to engage a discussion, when I started this thread. But I guess it's implied that I must completely agree with the content of the sources that I use.)

I sincerely believe it is up to the reader to use his/her discretion in finding the truth in news, and I happen to be one of the increasing number of people that tends to side with alternative media. While I don't completely agree with the way Alex Jones makes his hyperbolic assertions, I do agree with the underlying idea of what he has to say about these incidents that involve the government. Their reports may be exaggerated, and their views may be overemphasized, but it is with the good intention of pushing their agenda to expose and publicize the corruption of the shadow government that is destroying the inherent liberties and freedoms of the American people.

@user;

You use infowar as a source? Well there goes your f`ucking credibility LOL.

If you actually did the proper research, the car was being, by definition, used as a weapon. The cops actions are undeniably justified.

Yes, it's a source that I've placed my trust in for a very long time. I'm not going to ask why you think it's not credible though.

If I did consider the vehicle to have been used as a weapon, then under that definition of it being considered a "potential threat" to them, I would actually agree with you that what the police had to do was necessary, and therefore, justified. I know it's futile to question the legality of it, but it's just absurd to me how that woman was essentially being treated as a domestic terrorist.

Here, however, I see it as more of a case where an unarmed woman is shot down by the police, in front of her own child, because she was in a state of frenzy and took a few wrong turns. When you have a swarm of armed grown men in uniform yelling with their guns pointed at you, a fight-or-flight response (escaping the imminent danger, which is the police) is just natural. I interpreted it as the government reminding their slaves people that they will be killed if they disobey.

Also, I just feel that it's a bit irresponsible to say that I did not do a thorough job of researching; after reading through what was available and juxtaposing their content, I decided to share the articles that I found to be closer to the truth. Honestly asking, is there something wrong with what I've done? Or are you just expressing your disagreement with what I've posted?

[COLOR="#cc8899"]I would hardly call this an "execution" nor say that the media is "celebrating" it. The police reacted to what looked to be someone trying to forcibly gain access into a restricted/controlled area. We don't know what/if any words were exchanged between the police/the woman, we don't know if she threatened them, claimed to have a weapon, or even outright ignored them. We don't know if the police threatened her, overreacted, or panicked. The woman being unarmed doesn't excuse that she tried to force her way past several barriers or sped away from the police

The media isn't "celebrating" it, they're all rushing to get what they see as the story out first. This isn't unique to this event, it happens with every major incident. Every new detail will be blasted on every station until a new media frenzy comes up.

If you're going to post something in current events, please, for pineapple's sake, don't make the opening post so loaded and biased that it shuts out any real discussion. Words mean things, and poorly chosen words distort and twist events just as badly as what the media does. [/COLOR]

I realize that the terms "public execution" and "celebration" are not appropriately used for this particular event, but I think you're partly focusing on the wrong issue here. Though I agree that there are far too many details that are not known (at the moment), I don't think we should be focusing on the specific words used to describe the same event. What I find more important is examining the implications of said event. For one, it serves as a distraction to the real news that is important (which isn't covered by mainstream at all, or it's later introduced as "breaking" news several months after it had already been announced by alternative). America is gradually becoming more of a police state, and this incident serves to reinforce that concept.

When someone is using a vehicle as a weapon in the capital city, in an area that is off limits and heavily guarded, yes, you're going to shoot. That's the whole point of having an armed guard. It's a vehicle - if they had hesitated, it would be too late to act when they did know everything. Go ahead and be sickened, but I'm damned sure going to prefer an armed guard that does their job rather than simply watch the car go by and do nothing. When you're talking about potential harm to senior policy makers, high ranking military and government officials, you do not have the luxury of asking questions first.

This is precisely what disgusts me. Those police officers killed a DENTAL HYGIENIST, a SINGLE mother with a young child in her backseat, unarmed. In spite of the potential dangers toward other civilians and government officials, don't you think they went too far?
Other news articles attribute Carey's actions to a "history of mental illness", but it's far too coincidental that it is used as the same rationale behind every "shooting" that takes place in this country (whether it's instigated by the victim, by the police, or by a third party funded by the government).
And it certainly doesn't help that this capitol shooting can be interpreted as another false flag, seeing how there was a drill (Capital Shield 14) taking place on the same day. This mirrors the Boston Marathon bombing incident several months ago.

As it turns out, false flag attacks like 9/11 and the Boston Bombing are a common tactic that corrupt government's use to stage an event, blame the appropriate patsies, and ultimately foment war or some other monumental social change. With 9/11, George W. Bush was able to implement the Patriot Act, for instance, which brought about the creation of the very same DHS responsible for funding the Boston Bombing false flag attack.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040898_boston...rills.html

But in any case, I'm sorry for posting such a controversial article, I made a poor judgment.

I think that by "ruled by fear" he means "has enemies", not "the people fear the government". Thus, the need for armed guards against the very real possibility that someone might want to do exactly what this woman did - but with a ton of explosives in the car. He claims his country's government does not make enemies, and therefore needs not fear being attacked in such a manner.

The implication, of course, is that making enemies - especially of the violent kind - necessarily means you're doing something wrong.

Most Americans are oblivious to what's actually happening, and they don't realize that they've been brainwashed. The Obama Administration is practically a mafia out to destroy prosperity. Their religion is a social-Darwinist, Malthusian neo-eugenics system under a planetary of controlled markets and mercantilism. America is run by foreign interests that operate a neo-feudalistic serfdom on its people.
This isn't even unique to America, it's a worldwide technocracy. There's a very good reason for people to fear the government. Unless something is done about it.

People just doesn't like bias and does its best to avoid as much as possible, your thread goes against that and pushes the limits: the title, what you wrote in OP, the articles you used and now this. And you knew you'd get those kind of "aggressive" answers but somehow get annoyed now by it. As I've said in every other thread that it's like this, if you don't necessarily mean what's implied in your thread, state it! Otherwise you're gonna get answers that feel like attacks.

What, you prefer to live thinking there's a potential suicide bomber living on the house next to yours?

Trust nobody. Shoot first. All it takes to survive.

Here, we don't think that way. It's quite simple. But then again, it's hard to explain the way of thinking things. On the other hand, though, there's a lot of awful people here, too. If that's what you were implying on the video. But not enough to fear them.

You do realize that spain was notorious for refugees of the Britain underworld to go to right? And your opinion loses all credibility when the first reaction of the f`ucking video is to try to detain the person when she almost runs over an officer (In fact I think she did seriously injure one at one point).

So no, our first instinct is not shoot to kill, unless being shot at. In fact, almost any self defense class will teach you that a wounded man is more dangerous when armed, it's common sense in fact. You sound so uneducated on the subject it's hilarious.

One of the purposes of using InfoWars as a source was for me to observe the general Southperrian reaction to its "extremist" interpretation of another incident of police brutality. As expected, I received very negative responses when I posted links to an alternative media source that approaches the topic from a different angle. If, instead, I had posted links to The Washington Post or The New York Times (news sources that most people would regard as neutral, when in fact they're actually biased too), or if I had named the title of this thread to one that does not sound so controversial, this sort of reaction would not have been exhibited.

How about the fact that Alex Jones and most republican radical speakers have lost majority of their listeners because even the racists are finding them bat pomegranate crazy.

You have been trained to instantaneously perceive your typical mainstream media (which does include those seemingly "credible" newspaper articles such as the ones I just referenced above) as a "reliable source", and all other sources as radical, misinformed, and having no basis.

If you actually took the time to actually look at my post you'll see that I have posted a youtube video, which is not in any form related to any mainstream outlet. By watching the video you see this is anything but an execution as that retard exaggerates, they responded as they should have, and I haven't even READ any stories regarding it, do you know why? Because unlike majority of dumb asses who still don't understand the concept that most news stories documenting events like this are going to be inaccurate as their primary concern is speed and not accuracy.

I have in fact listened to some of alex jones rants, they are the epitome of bigotry, racism, and are so fu`cking off the rocker that most people have stopped listening to him.

Then, I am subsequently attacked for "not having done enough research", or labeled as a mere conspiracy theorist. (I didn't even give my own opinion toward how I feel about this incident, or why I decided to choose these sources in particular to engage a discussion, when I started this thread. But I guess it's implied that I must completely agree with the content of the sources that I use.)

I sincerely believe it is up to the reader to use his/her discretion in finding the truth in news, and I happen to be one of the increasing number of people that tends to side with alternative media. While I don't completely agree with the way Alex Jones makes his hyperbolic assertions, I do agree with the underlying idea of what he has to say about these incidents that involve the government. Their reports may be exaggerated, and their views may be overemphasized, but it is with the good intention of pushing their agenda to expose and publicize the corruption of the shadow government that is destroying the inherent liberties and freedoms of the American people.

There is a youtube video with no affiliation to any news outlet showing you that the officers attempted to safely get the women. Instead she ran them over. You jump the wagon that they executed her because your general news source says so. I listen to TYT, I agree with their perspective in a lot of things, but there are things that I find they inaccurately post, such as anything relating to that florida shoot out with whatever that kids name is. You have essentially defaulted to one outlet and let it manipulate you into this cynical perspective that most of the time is unjustifiable.

Yes, it's a source that I've placed my trust in for a very long time. I'm not going to ask why you think it's not credible though.

If I did consider the vehicle to have been used as a weapon, then under that definition of it being considered a "potential threat" to them, I would actually agree with you that what the police had to do was necessary, and therefore, justified. I know it's futile to question the legality of it, but it's just absurd to me how that woman was essentially being treated as a domestic terrorist.

SHE CRASHED INTO A BARRIER AND RAN OFF RATHER THAN RESPONDING TO THE OFFICERS PLEA TO GET OUT OF THE VEHICLE. SHE EVEN ATTEMPTED TO RUN SOME OF THEM OVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE, ITS ALL ON TAPE, SHE WAS A THREAT. I'm not sure if you ever driven around DC but having a driver like that is a danger to everyone, including monuments.

Here, however, I see it as more of a case where an unarmed woman is shot down by the police, in front of her own child, because she was in a state of frenzy and took a few wrong turns. When you have a swarm of armed grown men in uniform yelling with their guns pointed at you, a fight-or-flight response (escaping the imminent danger, which is the police) is just natural. I interpreted it as the government reminding their slaves people that they will be kill

So you blame it on instincts? What about her "motherly" instinct to protect the child which would be to leave the f`ucking car. That would be my response, and anyone with a frekin brain would yield, especially if it was an "accident". Do you really want to vote on this, whether to surrender or drive away in a car with your child? Cus it wont be in your favor.

Lastly she was armed with a CAR, she was not unarmed, the legal term is vehicular man slaughter, which she in fact committed.

Also, I just feel that it's a bit irresponsible to say that I did not do a thorough job of researching; after reading through what was available and juxtaposing their content, I decided to share the articles that I found to be closer to the truth. Honestly asking, is there something wrong with what I've done? Or are you just expressing your disagreement with what I've posted?

The irony is your research is sabotaged from the get go from the limited information and inaccuracies to begin with. These "alternative" news stations in fact have less resources, and even share a lot of their insiders with the mainstream. Do you realize that the women was declared unarmed by the media before the alternative, which would mean their dependency on mainstream media is just as much as ours. An 'alternative' news station is not a source, it's an analysis, they cut through the bull pomegranate. Alex jones is confused by his part of the food chain and tries to emphasis "patriotic" perspectives to get you angry and wild. Using terms like "unarmed", and "execution" when it was anything but. The officers initial thought was "Get out of the car" her response was to attempt to run them over.

edit: Looked for the video I saw yesterday again and I was wrong. Disregard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3EDZHrJaec

You do realize that spain was notorious for refugees of the Britain underworld to go to right? And your opinion loses all credibility when the first reaction of the f`ucking video is to try to detain the person when she almost runs over an officer (In fact I think she did seriously injure one at one point).

So no, our first instinct is not shoot to kill, unless being shot at. In fact, almost any self defense class will teach you that a wounded man is more dangerous when armed, it's common sense in fact. You sound so uneducated on the subject it's hilarious.

Shoot the wheels, use a car to incapacitate, but the last thing, killing. Yes, she has a car, be careful about it. But do it right. I saw the images, yes. And the wheels were intact for sure.

And if you are going to talk about my country being awful in the past, first make sure yours didn't exterminate the natives from where you live, and boast about it, even displaying them as the bad guys in stories and movies for decades.

Shoot the wheels, use a car to incapacitate, but the last thing, killing. Yes, she has a car, be careful about it. But do it right. I saw the images, yes. And the wheels were intact for sure.

And if you are going to talk about my country being awful in the past, first make sure yours didn't exterminate the natives from where you live, and boast about it, even displaying them as the bad guys in stories and movies for decades.

...are you really this fucking naive.

Shoot the wheels, use a car to incapacitate, but the last thing, killing. Yes, she has a car, be careful about it. But do it right. I saw the images, yes. And the wheels were intact for sure.

And if you are going to talk about my country being awful in the past, first make sure yours didn't exterminate the natives from where you live, and boast about it, even displaying them as the bad guys in stories and movies for decades.

[URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/why-didnt-police-shoot-out-miriam-careys-tires-2013-10"]
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-didnt...es-2013-10[/URL] HUH, FUNNY. second of all, when she's using the car to run people over and not for the sole purpose of escaping, shooting the tires would not significantly even lower her speed where she was no longer a threat. She put the cops in that position. And for f`uck sake you're going to fall back on that? Spain was by far the worst offender. Frekin Mayans had a great time with you huh? Second of all they were all European countries that significantly attacked the Indians. The whole cowboy vs indian thing was generations of strife from European ancestors, where majority of them died from the black plague. So by that logic you're just as guilty as I am, especially since I'm Italian who was under prejudice in NY for generations, while the Spaniards where your fallacy of pride comes from, invaded along with the French and Britain killing Indians in order to survive. Do you hear that? It's your credibility being sucked up by the vacuum of a black f`ucking hole.

EDIT: Actually I know my lineage and migrated much like the rest of the world way after the Indian incident. In fact, considering the population is shifting towards minority (african americans and latino's) your point is even less valid. News flash, not everyone in the united states was part of the original 13 colonies.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-didnt...es-2013-10 HUH, FUNNY. second of all, when she's using the car to run people over and not for the sole purpose of escaping, shooting the tires would not significantly even lower her speed where she was no longer a threat. She put the cops in that position. And for f`uck sake you're going to fall back on that? Spain was by far the worst offender. Frekin Mayans had a great time with you huh? Second of all they were all European countries that significantly attacked the Indians. The whole cowboy vs indian thing was generations of strife from European ancestors, where majority of them died from the black plague. So by that logic you're just as guilty as I am, especially since I'm Italian who was under prejudice in NY for generations, while the Spaniards where your fallacy of pride comes from invaded along with the French and Britain killing Indians in order to survive. Do you hear that? It's you're credibility being sucked up by the vacuum of a black f`ucking hole.

This country is a piece of crap, but we don't have fear, and that's my point. My country is filled with thieves in every corner, and lots of stupid people. And that's true, yes.

Now what was this thread about again? Ah yes. About a woman shot to death as first resort to handle a situation. And where a significant ammount of people simply sees it as "thank God she was put down".

My point was that this happens in my country, and people flip out. I don't care about drunk englishmen, dead natives in the hands of future americans or enslaved/massacred mayans in THIS thread. This is about a dead mother in front of the White house. Was she trying to run away, or run people over? Welp! We won't know at the court, because she's dead.

And no need to yell or curse. Trust me, you sound much more stupid when talking like that, even if you have a point. It just makes people rage along with you until the debate becomes a shitstorm.

Now what was this thread about again? Ah yes. About a woman shot to death as first resort to handle a situation. And where a significant ammount of people simply sees it as "thank God she was put down".
.

o.....o its like your not even reading what other people post, the police officers DID try to stop her without even shooting. They tried getting her out of the vehicle. How the pomegranate does the police taking action AFTER doing that count as First Resort?

Now what was this thread about again? Ah yes. About a woman shot to death as first resort to handle a situation. And where a significant ammount of people simply sees it as "thank God she was put down".

...Again, watch the video, it was a LAST resort. They tried to get her to exit the car. She responded by running people over. THAT'S IS BY DEFINITION WEAPONIZING A VEHICLE. Secondly, when they shot at her the first time, don't you think they WERE aiming for the tires? It be a really tough shot to hit someone from a car driving AWAY, rather than towards. So at best they shooting her to death was a SECOND response, if not a THIRD response, if not a FOURTH. No where in the video is it captured of her DYING, just DRIVING away.

My point was that this happens in my country, and people flip out. I don't care about drunk englishmen, dead natives in the hands of future americans or enslaved/massacred mayans in THIS thread. This is about a dead mother in front of the White house. Was she trying to run away, or run people over? Welp! We won't know at the court, because she's dead.

It you's going astray. You want to talk about how a country is "Shoot then ask questions later" with no real evidence. In fact your entire interpretation is flat out WRONG just by watching the damn video that's 2 minutes.

And no need to yell or curse. Trust me, you sound much more stupid when talking like that, even if you have a point. It just makes people rage along with you until the debate becomes a pomegranatestorm.

Emphasizing my points by putting a curse word to show my frustration of how you reach these opinion's is nothing you should take personally as they are not personal. Yet here we are, with you lacking any facts to back up your statements, so instead you claim "OFF TOPIC" to try to save face. You want to stay on point fine, but don't start by countering my points with fallacies.

o.....o its like your not even reading what other people post, the police officers DID try to stop her without even shooting. They tried getting her out of the vehicle. How the pomegranate does the police taking action AFTER doing that count as First Resort?

You are actually the first person to say this in a normal way. Either way, Things always have a way around. In my town, one day, a bus driver went nuts. And started going wrecklessly with a BUS. Not many were injuried and none killed as far as I remember. But we wasn't shot to death. This happened long ago, now, but what I'm saying is that there's always a way.

Maybe the first approach wasn't as good as they thought, but still, she ended up dead.

But yes, I admit I might have gone a bit nuts, too. I'm just thinking about the poor woman that didn't even have time to retake sanity to realize what she did, and even afterwards, how are they going to explain that to her child. Maybe it's just that. Sorry if I went too harsh on some things.

You are actually the first person to say this in a normal way. Either way, Things always have a way around. In my town, one day, a bus driver went nuts. And started going wrecklessly with a BUS. Not many were injuried and none killed as far as I remember. But we wasn't shot to death. This happened long ago, now, but what I'm saying is that there's always a way.

Maybe the first approach wasn't as good as they thought, but still, she ended up dead.

Taking your story, you have to put it into context, you said no one has actually attacked the president of your country. Now lets say the bus driver did this in your nations capital, and was heading towards your presidents home. You have to take things into perspective. Could there have potentially been a better way to do this? Probably, but you have to take into account that it was possible that her car was armed with explosives, and if they did try other work around methods, potentially a lot more people could have been injured. What im trying to say here, would you rather have 1 dead person, and few victims, or 100 dead people and alot of victims.

This country is a piece of crap, but we don't have fear, and that's my point. My country is filled with thieves in every corner, and lots of stupid people. And that's true, yes.

Thieves in every corner but no fear? Economic issues and no fear? A state wanting secession and some politicians saying that they need violent measures and there's no fear?
Either Spaniards don't feel anything or they are courageous as pineapple. Different fear? Try different contexts too.

My point was that this happens in my country, and people flip out. I don't care about drunk englishmen, dead natives in the hands of future americans or enslaved/massacred mayans in THIS thread. This is about a dead mother in front of the White house. Was she trying to run away, or run people over? Welp! We won't know at the court, because she's dead.

Because witnesses, videos and physical evidence are all useless.

My point was that this happens in my country, and people flip out. .

Oh, and I wouldn't know if this is 100% true. As far as I know, Spain hasn't done much after Franco's death.
In fact, http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1934001/.../expertos/
Killing one person is completely unacceptable there but 114,000 victims still without justice after, what 30 years or so? is completely ok.
You choose a poor argument there.

I think it's hilarious how people use the US to make themselves better about the place they live at.

Taking your story, you have to put it into context, you said no one has actually attacked the president of your country. Now lets say the bus driver did this in your nations capital, and was heading towards your presidents home. You have to take things into perspective. Could there have potentially been a better way to do this? Probably, but you have to take into account that it was possible that her car was armed with explosives, and if they did try other work around methods, potentially a lot more people could have been injured. What im trying to say here, would you rather have 1 dead person, and few victims, or 100 dead people and alot of victims.

I guess the problem here was the lack of evidence, more than anything. And about our president... I don't know, we don't really care that much about him. Sure, he has bodyguards, but he doesn't have a white house-like security around him. Maybe we just don't assume a crazed driver has his car filled with explosives as a first thought.

But I understand your point of view. What I hate is seeing people getting to the point of those events even happening.

Thieves in every corner but no fear? Economic issues and no fear? A state wanting secession and some politicians saying that they need violent measures and there's no fear?
Either Spaniards don't feel anything or they are courageous as pineapple. Different fear? Try different contexts too.

Because witnesses, videos and physical evidence are all useless.

I think it's hilarious how people use the US to make themselves better about the place they live at.

Our thieves aren't the "stab, get cash, run" kind. There's a lot of scammers and pickpockets here. Sure, it's something to get worried of, but you don't fear for your life, specially when you get to know how to avoid them. Hell, I was once using a public bicycle and when I parked I forgot to recover a blank notepad. THE NOTEPAD WAS GONE WITHIN 10 MINUTES. And the bicyle was still there, so nobody got it afterwards.

And as for the economy... Our fear is not for our lives. It's for our future. If things keep going like they are going, that flag on the left of this text might have different colors.

And if witnesses, videos and physical evidence were all they needed, trials wouldn't need a lawyer.

I've only heard about this briefly from European news sources and all comments I've seen contain negative responses towards the US. There's so much US-hatred going around.
I just don't understand how it was impossible to stop one single woman in a car without killing her with the famous FBI, Secret Service and Police involved. But I'm glad no innocent bystanders were physically hurt.