Assassination attempt on trump

[jfish26]

Man, as the details continue to emerge, the Secret Service only looks worse and worse...and worse. Talk about dropping the ball.

You happen to see the FOIA dump yesterday, relating to the frequency and reach of unauthorized access to Trump at Mar-a-Lago?

We’re all inclined to see what we want to see in these things, but it might well just be that we’re seeing the result of the Secret Service not having the resources to protect this particular protectee, and this particular protectee not having the willingness to modify the way he wants to live in order to help the Secret Service protect him.

But it seems, in this instance, as if they did have the resources to protect him -- secret service spotted him on the roof 20 minutes before he fired.

And then they shot him 20 seconds after he fired.

So it doesn't seem like a resource problem in this case.

I might attribute it more to what twocoach said -- you can't shoot him just because he's carrying a high powered rifle because carrying that weapon is not against the law.

I guess we’re not quite saying the same thing; I absolutely agree on the rules of engagement point (and I think it’s good policy). But from my point of view, more resources (whether public or private) would mean you push the truly secured perimeter (of which this building was outside) farther out. Such that this guy couldn’t have been up there in the first place.

[pdub]

Ah, yea, I guess.
But again, they spotted him, and had 20 minutes to do something about it.
You have to know they saw him crawling on the roof aiming the gun - they must have just been waiting for him to actually fire.

Maybe fire a warning shot right by him?

[jfish26]

Ah, yea, I guess.
But again, they spotted him, and had 20 minutes to do something about it.
You have to know they saw him crawling on the roof aiming the gun - they must have just been waiting for him to actually fire.

Maybe fire a warning shot right by him?

Complicated, right? I think the law enforcement types would tell us that when you know there are lots of guns around - some known, some unknown - it's not a good idea to be the one introducing a gunshot to the mix.

[pdub]

I dunno, if I really wanted to protect someone, and I was one of the best at doing so, I'd try to hit his arm or hand - and if I missed and hit his head, well, wtf are you doing crawling on a roof with a rifle in the first place?

[jfish26]

I dunno, if I really wanted to protect someone, and I was one of the best at doing so, I'd try to hit his arm or hand - and if I missed and hit his head, well, wtf are you doing crawling on a roof with a rifle in the first place?

I agree with you - I'm not saying the risk is you miss his arm and hit his melon...that's an acceptable (even good) outcome, on its own.

The risk is that the gunfire results in a goddamn shootout involving the dozens - hundreds? more? - of firearms you know to be present.

That's not what happened, of course, but the rules of engagement are about the probabilities weighed against the magnitude of the consequences.

[twocoach]

Ah, yea, I guess.
But again, they spotted him, and had 20 minutes to do something about it.
You have to know they saw him crawling on the roof aiming the gun - they must have just been waiting for him to actually fire.

Maybe fire a warning shot right by him?

For what? Pennsylvania is an Open Carry state. It is perfectly legal for him to be sitting there watching the speech while holding a rifle. You want the GOP nominee to shoot someone for executing their God given right to bear arms?!?

Welcome to the unintended consequences of open carry laws, where law enforcement is now put in a position where they cannot do anything to a person with a gun until AFTER the person with a gun does something illegal with that gun. Which means law enforcement can no longer prevent that from happening.

[jfish26]

Ah, yea, I guess.
But again, they spotted him, and had 20 minutes to do something about it.
You have to know they saw him crawling on the roof aiming the gun - they must have just been waiting for him to actually fire.

Maybe fire a warning shot right by him?

For what? Pennsylvania is an Open Carry state. It is perfectly legal for him to be sitting there watching the speech while holding a rifle. You want the GOP nominee to shoot someone for executing their God given right to bear arms?!?

Welcome to the unintended consequences of open carry laws, where law enforcement is now put in a position where they cannot do anything to a person with a gun until AFTER the person with a gun does something illegal with that gun. Which means law enforcement can no longer prevent that from happening.

Hmm.

[pdub]

I get what you are saying and I do think there's actually truth based in the absurdity there -- but could he be considered trespassing ( I honestly don't know ) and considered a 'clear and present danger' because of where he was and how he was acting?

If a dude on a roof top aiming an AR directly at the person you are protecting isn't cause for action, what is?

[Shirley]

The excuse by the head of the SS is that the roof the assassin was on was sloped, and even tho the sniper could see him, he couldn't tell for sure that he intended to shoot the 34 times convicted orange pos.

[Overlander]

This is a protected and policed event.
Normal security protocols would not suffice for this event.

The first local cop who saw the guy on the roof (if that report is true) is most at fault. There should have been communication to the entire security team that there was an unauthorized person on that roof.

They should have known every single spot that each of them are supposed to be, and there should have been spotters keeping an eye on EVERY single angle that had line of sight to that stage.
This is gone over several times in situational briefings and security plans. Team leaders question all members on their responsibilities and rules of engagement.

This guy should have been seen and neutralized prior to getting that shot off. Even if that simply meant getting Trumps fat ass to the ground.

This has systematic failure written all over it.

Once again, a slight turn of his fat melon saved Trump.

[jfish26]

This is a protected and policed event.
Normal security protocols would not suffice for this event.

The first local cop who saw the guy on the roof (if that report is true) is most at fault. There should have been communication to the entire security team that there was an unauthorized person on that roof.

They should have known every single spot that each of them are supposed to be, and there should have been spotters keeping an eye on EVERY single angle that had line of sight to that stage.
This is gone over several times in situational briefings and security plans. Team leaders question all members on their responsibilities and rules of engagement.

This guy should have been seen and neutralized prior to getting that shot off. Even if that simply meant getting Trumps fat ass to the ground.

This has systematic failure written all over it.

Once again, a slight turn of his fat melon saved Trump.

You know, a very good (perhaps conclusive) argument AGAINST the false-flag theory (the notion that this was staged) is that Defendant Bone Spurs is a noted coward, and could have got 98.8% of the victimhood bump here simply by being taken down for show.

[DeletedUser]

Once again, a slight turn of his fat melon saved Trump.

The video that shows how close it came is insane. If he doesn't cock his head to the side at the perfect time it would have been game over.

Which leads me to the one logical conclusion: God saved Trump

[Overlander]

Once again, a slight turn of his fat melon saved Trump.

Which leads me to the one logical conclusion: God saved Trump

Clearly

[DeletedUser]

Once again, a slight turn of his fat melon saved Trump.

Which leads me to the one logical conclusion: God saved Trump

Clearly

The chosen one.

LOL

It cracks me up how now he's a courageous person. Simply because someone tried to shoot him.

I've never been shot at, but I don't think courage is required to take a bullet to the head unknowingly.

[jfish26]

You don't remember Muslims not being allowed in the country during the first (oh, about a) week that Trump was President as his puppeteers tested the courts?
Don't you remember pages of the EPA website literally disappearing?

That was just the warm up. If dt is Pres, life will change. His brand of politics is what young adults are learning now and it is horrible. The not being civil, the interruptions, the not knowing what one is talking about it. Life as we know it will not be pretty in 10 years. The wage gaps will be wider. The rich, taking more of what is ours (the air, the water, etc). you get the idea. You either want to blame someone (new RNC voters) or want a better future for your children (blue voters).

It's going to be cynical rent-seeking, everywhere you look. With precisely the effects you mention, and more - the tandem erosion of public spaces and the barest will for collective action are very much of a piece with the "polarization" that the polarizers will tell you they are against.

To wit.

Project 2025 wants to eliminate NOAA and the National Weather Service

It’d be hard to imagine a government agency which does more for ordinary Americans and which has less to do with politics than the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration It’s an organization dedicated to climate, oceans, weather, the country’s coasts, and environmental matters in general. It’s staffed with scientists, technicians, and administrators who, for the most part, pursued their careers out of a passion for the stuff NOAA deals with on a day-to-day basis.

The National Weather Service in particular, which operates under NOAA’s aegis, does just a couple of basic yet critical things but it does them very well: it forecasts the weather and issues warnings about severe weather. It makes the data it gathers and the forecasts and warnings it promulgates available to the public for free. It’s just an amazingly useful service. People may take it for granted but that’s also proof of just how useful and seamless it is. People assume it will always be there because it always has been there. And people like that it’s there.

But it won’t be there if Donald Trump gets elected and Republicans enact Project 2025, which seeks to basically eliminate it. From The Atlantic:

Charging for popular services that were previously free isn’t generally a winning political strategy. But hard-right policy makers appear poised to try to do just that should Republicans gain power in the next term. Project 2025—a nearly 900-page book of policy proposals published by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation—states that an incoming administration should all but dissolve the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under which the National Weather Service operates . . .

. . . NOAA “should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories,” Project 2025 reads. The proposals roughly amount to two main avenues of attack. First, it suggests that the NWS should eliminate its public-facing forecasts, focus on data gathering, and otherwise “fully commercialize its forecasting operations,” which the authors of the plan imply will improve, not limit, forecasts for all Americans. Then, NOAA’s scientific-research arm, which studies things such as Arctic-ice dynamics and how greenhouse gases behave (and which the document calls “the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism”), should be aggressively shrunk.

Republicans want to do this for two reasons, one old, one newer.

The old reason first reared its head back in the 1990s when the private company AccuWeather lobbied Republicans — particularly Senator Rick Santorum — to hamstring the National Weather Service. It did this so that AccuWeather could better monetize its own service without a free competitor. Never mind that AccuWeather and other such companies get most of their raw data and much of their forecast modeling for free from the National Weather Service in the first place. In short: it’d be a straight money play for well-connected private sector players who want nothing more than to be rent-seekers.

The newer reason: Republicans don’t like that NOAA is observing the effects of climate change and it would like as few people to know about what’s really happening as possible. Again, NOAA is not politicizing this stuff. It’s not got a dog in the fight. It does not have employees writing op-eds or anything. It’s just collecting the data and conducting the modeling about what is actually happening in the world. Republicans don’t want people to know what’s happening in the world, however, because knowledge of what’s happening in the world immediately renders most Republican political priorities insanely unpopular.

I will admit that I am not wholly unbiased when it comes to this topic. As I’ve mentioned before, my father was a meteorologist technician and then a field office manager at the National Weather Service for nearly 40 years. A “weatherman” generically speaking. Because of that I saw first hand what the National Weather Service does, what it doesn’t do, how it interacts with the public, with aviators, with business, with TV news and even those rent-seeking private weather outfits. Sometimes I am accused for being too pro-government and New Deal-eyed optimistic about what it can do, but if I am a lot of that comes from watching how much good and useful stuff can come from a part of the government which seeks to do nothing other than provide a service for the public. It’s an agency that is as benign as could be, staffed by non-political people who overwhelmingly got into it because they simply love talking and thinking about weather. Sometimes they’re wrong about which way the wind blows, but with all apologies to Mr. Dylan, you do need a weatherman.

We can’t have that if Republicans take over, however, because that interferes with their mission to (a) privatize as much public money as they possibly can; and (b) hide factual information which complicates their economic and ideological agendas. That matters more to them than you or me knowing if a dangerous storm is coming or a farmer knowing if it’s a good time to plant. At least if we aren’t rich enough to pay some private company to tell us.

https://cupofcoffee.beehiiv.com/p/cup-c ... ly-18-2024

[jhawks99]

You don't remember Muslims not being allowed in the country during the first (oh, about a) week that Trump was President as his puppeteers tested the courts?
Don't you remember pages of the EPA website literally disappearing?

That was just the warm up. If dt is Pres, life will change. His brand of politics is what young adults are learning now and it is horrible. The not being civil, the interruptions, the not knowing what one is talking about it. Life as we know it will not be pretty in 10 years. The wage gaps will be wider. The rich, taking more of what is ours (the air, the water, etc). you get the idea. You either want to blame someone (new RNC voters) or want a better future for your children (blue voters).

It's going to be cynical rent-seeking, everywhere you look. With precisely the effects you mention, and more - the tandem erosion of public spaces and the barest will for collective action are very much of a piece with the "polarization" that the polarizers will tell you they are against.

To wit.

Project 2025 wants to eliminate NOAA and the National Weather Service

It’d be hard to imagine a government agency which does more for ordinary Americans and which has less to do with politics than the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration It’s an organization dedicated to climate, oceans, weather, the country’s coasts, and environmental matters in general. It’s staffed with scientists, technicians, and administrators who, for the most part, pursued their careers out of a passion for the stuff NOAA deals with on a day-to-day basis.

The National Weather Service in particular, which operates under NOAA’s aegis, does just a couple of basic yet critical things but it does them very well: it forecasts the weather and issues warnings about severe weather. It makes the data it gathers and the forecasts and warnings it promulgates available to the public for free. It’s just an amazingly useful service. People may take it for granted but that’s also proof of just how useful and seamless it is. People assume it will always be there because it always has been there. And people like that it’s there.

But it won’t be there if Donald Trump gets elected and Republicans enact Project 2025, which seeks to basically eliminate it. From The Atlantic:

Charging for popular services that were previously free isn’t generally a winning political strategy. But hard-right policy makers appear poised to try to do just that should Republicans gain power in the next term. Project 2025—a nearly 900-page book of policy proposals published by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation—states that an incoming administration should all but dissolve the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under which the National Weather Service operates . . .

. . . NOAA “should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories,” Project 2025 reads. The proposals roughly amount to two main avenues of attack. First, it suggests that the NWS should eliminate its public-facing forecasts, focus on data gathering, and otherwise “fully commercialize its forecasting operations,” which the authors of the plan imply will improve, not limit, forecasts for all Americans. Then, NOAA’s scientific-research arm, which studies things such as Arctic-ice dynamics and how greenhouse gases behave (and which the document calls “the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism”), should be aggressively shrunk.

Republicans want to do this for two reasons, one old, one newer.

The old reason first reared its head back in the 1990s when the private company AccuWeather lobbied Republicans — particularly Senator Rick Santorum — to hamstring the National Weather Service. It did this so that AccuWeather could better monetize its own service without a free competitor. Never mind that AccuWeather and other such companies get most of their raw data and much of their forecast modeling for free from the National Weather Service in the first place. In short: it’d be a straight money play for well-connected private sector players who want nothing more than to be rent-seekers.

The newer reason: Republicans don’t like that NOAA is observing the effects of climate change and it would like as few people to know about what’s really happening as possible. Again, NOAA is not politicizing this stuff. It’s not got a dog in the fight. It does not have employees writing op-eds or anything. It’s just collecting the data and conducting the modeling about what is actually happening in the world. Republicans don’t want people to know what’s happening in the world, however, because knowledge of what’s happening in the world immediately renders most Republican political priorities insanely unpopular.

I will admit that I am not wholly unbiased when it comes to this topic. As I’ve mentioned before, my father was a meteorologist technician and then a field office manager at the National Weather Service for nearly 40 years. A “weatherman” generically speaking. Because of that I saw first hand what the National Weather Service does, what it doesn’t do, how it interacts with the public, with aviators, with business, with TV news and even those rent-seeking private weather outfits. Sometimes I am accused for being too pro-government and New Deal-eyed optimistic about what it can do, but if I am a lot of that comes from watching how much good and useful stuff can come from a part of the government which seeks to do nothing other than provide a service for the public. It’s an agency that is as benign as could be, staffed by non-political people who overwhelmingly got into it because they simply love talking and thinking about weather. Sometimes they’re wrong about which way the wind blows, but with all apologies to Mr. Dylan, you do need a weatherman.

We can’t have that if Republicans take over, however, because that interferes with their mission to (a) privatize as much public money as they possibly can; and (b) hide factual information which complicates their economic and ideological agendas. That matters more to them than you or me knowing if a dangerous storm is coming or a farmer knowing if it’s a good time to plant. At least if we aren’t rich enough to pay some private company to tell us.

https://cupofcoffee.beehiiv.com/p/cup-c ... ly-18-2024

Sounds like we need to subscribe to the tornado sirens.

[MICHHAWK]

when i want to know what the weather is doing. i look outside.

[pdub]

mich has never seen/heard a weather report in his life.
he's anti weather reports.

"hey everyone let's go to the beach tomorrow"
"mich, honey, there's a 100% chance of rain and it's going to be 45 degrees."
"looks sunny outside right now. don't forget your beach towels."

[jfish26]

when i want to know what the weather is doing. i look outside.

[Sparko]

when i want to know what the weather is doing. i look outside.

Epitaph of man missing since the blizzard of 2-5