3.1-billion-dollar budget. 8000 employees. Some of the best trained men and women in world. How do they allow an untrained 20 year old kid a 130 yard shot at a President?

[headshuck]

There needs to be serious consequences for not protecting critical data.

[Offthemat]

4 minutes ago, headshuck said:

There needs to be serious consequences for not protecting critical data.

It’ll be interesting to see if they actually take her phone to analyze it. 

[mspart]

Billy, are you saying that they did not have resources to cover that rooftop that was in plain sight of the stage?   Or is it SS procedure to wait for a would be assassin to fire first before taking any action whatsoever to stop more shooting?  

I have heard a recording of the SS guys talking about the guy on the rooftop, pointing him out, and doing nothing.   If that is normal protocol, I suggest a new protocol be developed where such rooftops are not left unmanned and if so, someone on there gets shot, especially if they have a firearm.  Even if they don't.  

mspart

[billyhoyle]

16 minutes ago, mspart said:

Billy, are you saying that they did not have resources to cover that rooftop that was in plain sight of the stage?   Or is it SS procedure to wait for a would be assassin to fire first before taking any action whatsoever to stop more shooting?  

I have heard a recording of the SS guys talking about the guy on the rooftop, pointing him out, and doing nothing.   If that is normal protocol, I suggest a new protocol be developed where such rooftops are not left unmanned and if so, someone on there gets shot, especially if they have a firearm.  Even if they don't.  

mspart

In retrospect it of course should have been covered and they of course failed to fully secure the candidate. But they didn’t fail in protecting his life-you can call it luck, but the assassin had to take a rushed shot and was taken out quickly once the snipers  identified him as a threat. The secret service both failed to fully protect Trump, but also saved his life.

The thing with points of failure is that it’s impossible to eliminate them all in this type of outdoor setting, and most of the time we can only be reactive instead of proactive. Reinforcing cockpit doors on airplanes is a perfect example. It would have prevented 9/11, but who knew to do that? 

Yes, the roof should have been secure. But that wasn’t the only point of failure. Anyone in that crowd potentially had the ability to sneak in a weapon through the checkpoint with proper concealment. Look at what happened in Japan as an example. 
 

We live in a country where it’s extremely easy for these wackos to get guns (political assassins are often not politically motivated but fit the same profile as Crooks). So the challenge of protecting somebody this high profile is very real. The next time something like this happens, there will be another obvious point of failure that caused it. 
 

I think some of the key takeaways from this are:

1. Better communication is needed between local police and secret service.

2. Candidates should avoid having these open outdoor rallies-venues should be more secure. 

3. Secret service should have a better system of removing the candidate from the stage if there is anything suspicious at all. 

Edited July 22 by billyhoyle

[Offthemat]

10 minutes ago, billyhoyle said:

In retrospect it of course should have been covered and they of course failed to fully secure the candidate. But they didn’t fail in protecting his life-you can call it luck, but the assassin had to take a rushed shot and was taken out quickly once the snipers  identified him as a threat. The secret service both failed to fully protect Trump, but also saved his life.

The thing with points of failure is that it’s impossible to eliminate them all in this type of outdoor setting, and most of the time we can only be reactive instead of proactive. Reinforcing cockpit doors on airplanes is a perfect example. It would have prevented 9/11, but who knew to do that? 

Yes, the roof should have been secure. But that wasn’t the only point of failure. Anyone in that crowd potentially had the ability to sneak in a weapon through the checkpoint with proper concealment. Look at what happened in Japan as an example. 
 

We live in a country where it’s extremely easy for these wackos to get guns (political assassins are often not politically motivated but fit the same profile as Crooks). So the challenge of protecting somebody this high profile is very real. The next time something like this happens, there will be another obvious point of failure that caused it. 

I recommend watching:  

https://rumble.com/v57yqe5-this-was-a-coup-directed-at-biden-ep.-2291-07222024.html?mref=22lbp&mc=56yab

[Paul158]

31 minutes ago, billyhoyle said:

In retrospect it of course should have been covered and they of course failed to fully secure the candidate. But they didn’t fail in protecting his life-you can call it luck, but the assassin had to take a rushed shot and was taken out quickly once the snipers  identified him as a threat. The secret service both failed to fully protect Trump, but also saved his life.

The thing with points of failure is that it’s impossible to eliminate them all in this type of outdoor setting, and most of the time we can only be reactive instead of proactive. Reinforcing cockpit doors on airplanes is a perfect example. It would have prevented 9/11, but who knew to do that? 

Yes, the roof should have been secure. But that wasn’t the only point of failure. Anyone in that crowd potentially had the ability to sneak in a weapon through the checkpoint with proper concealment. Look at what happened in Japan as an example. 
 

We live in a country where it’s extremely easy for these wackos to get guns (political assassins are often not politically motivated but fit the same profile as Crooks). So the challenge of protecting somebody this high profile is very real. The next time something like this happens, there will be another obvious point of failure that caused it. 
 

I think some of the key takeaways from this are:

1. Better communication is needed between local police and secret service.

2. Candidates should avoid having these open outdoor rallies-venues should be more secure. 

3. Secret service should have a better system of removing the candidate from the stage if there is anything suspicious at all. 

Israel has had cockpit doors that are secured for decades.  AS far as securing sights maybe the zone should be extended out as far as necessary to protect president. Maybe put snipers on all buildings or at least agents or police on them. Maybe have arial security . Drones and helicopters.  This job is ZERO fail. You don't get a do over when you screw up. Protocol should be shoot first if someone has a weapon on a roof. I believe he got off 8 shots before the sniper killed him. There was a slight cross wind blowing that the shooter did not take into consideration because he was inexperienced. That was very fortunate for President Trump. Had he been an experienced sniper Trump would have been dead.  You can tell by the flag being flown overhead that there was a crosswind. 

[billyhoyle]

1 hour ago, Paul158 said:

Israel has had cockpit doors that are secured for decades.  AS far as securing sights maybe the zone should be extended out as far as necessary to protect president. Maybe put snipers on all buildings or at least agents or police on them. Maybe have arial security . Drones and helicopters.  This job is ZERO fail. You don't get a do over when you screw up. Protocol should be shoot first if someone has a weapon on a roof. I believe he got off 8 shots before the sniper killed him. There was a slight cross wind blowing that the shooter did not take into consideration because he was inexperienced. That was very fortunate for President Trump. Had he been an experienced sniper Trump would have been dead.  You can tell by the flag being flown overhead that there was a crosswind. 

I'm not saying the changes you are suggesting are wrong.  All I am saying is that I don't consider the failure by the secret service to be equal to incompetence. This guy got off 8 shots because he had a semi-automatic assault rifle-that is extremely challenging to stop even though they did eliminate the threat in seconds. 

At some point, there will be another failure by the Secret Service.  Thankfully, we went forty years between the last major one and this one (they have stopped many potential threats between these two events).  When that next failure happens, there will be some other point of failure that seems obvious in retrospect that was overlooked. It's just the nature of challenge of the job. It's impossible to account for and prevent every scenario given that these candidates are holding so many rallies and the secret service has finite resources.  You mention drones and helicopters as a defense-well preventing a drone attack is challenging as well.  Look at the murder of the Japanese prime minister as an example of how challenging stopping an assassination is. As technology gets better to stop these attacks, the technology available for them also improves. 

It's very easy to shit on law enforcement these days. I think we can acknowledge that they failed while also recognizing how difficult their job is, and how failure does not equal incompetence. The focus should be analogous to that after 9/11, where the goal was to stop future events-not insult the FBI for their failure to stop the attack. 

 

[FirstAmendmentBitches]

How many “word salads” delivered by agenda driven A-holes does it take to know that if the job isn’t done, you fail. In this arena, someone dies. Humans (and animals) respond to incentive. Both negative & positive incentive. Fire her A*%}# with NO GOLDEN PARACHUTE (and anyone else responsible) and see what happens to the future ppl who (think they can) do this job. I promise you, it takes “incentives” like jail/prison/execution for ppl NOT to kill & commit crimes; so there’s no difference here, when ppl screw up, they should get what they deserve. See what happens on both ends, if we DO or if we DON’T have incentives in our society. Example: Back in the Wild West, they had 6-shooters talk “the incentive language” to criminals. It was clear as can be. Vise Versa, if we didn’t have law enforcement or a court system (when it works as it should) we’d be in an “anything goes” banana republic. In this arena, let the “YOU GET FIRED WITHOUT A PENSION IF YOU SCREW UP,” (in this job) do the talking. Then see what happens & how everything/everyone gets “better” where it should’ve been before the issue/negligence happened in the first place. (That’s simple stuff ppl.) 

[Paul158]

The shooter had about 700 dollars invested in his shooting of President Trump. He had a drone, a bicycle, a back pack and he stole is dads AR15. 3.i Billion dollars vs 700 dollars. Zero experience 

[ionel]

1 hour ago, Paul158 said:

The shooter had about 700 dollars invested in his shooting of President Trump. He had a drone, a bicycle, a back pack and he stole is dads AR15. 3.i Billion dollars vs 700 dollars. Zero experience 

Don't forget the range finder.  But they do say the crazy gal/gal only has to get lucky once, the SS has to get it right everytime.  In this case the SS got in wrong and the crazy guy didn't get lucky but he was oh so close.