Bringing my post over from the first thread :
There are two buildings in the background. The one he shot from is the one in front of the other. See how the roof rises slightly (reducing the roof's slope) partway down its length?... The shooter was lying alongside that rise on the other side of the peak of the roof. That is likely why he...
www.websleuths.com
" Even if the perp accessed the roof fully outside of the rally perimeters, i.e., the area people had to pass through metal detectors --- then that was too small !
Roughly 150 yards was the distance from the perp to Trump, or 450 feet; and the perimeter was less than that, as it didn't include the buildings to the side ?
Since a bullet can travel much farther than that, why not secure as large a distance as a perp could reasonably shoot someone ?
They needed someone on that roof and prob. the building & roof behind that one as well.
This could have been even worse if there'd been more than the single perp.
I'm questioning if the secret service decided the area outside of the staging and crowd areas didn't need beefed-up security; and they thought the other buildings didn't pose a threat ?
And if so, why ?
My opinion and am saying this a layperson without experience in security --I would have made sure any rooftops had secret service in place as a precaution.
Too close and too tempting for a deranged shooter.
Omo."
Even if it was solely the local LE's responsibility, and not the secret service --I'm assuming the SS and possibly the PA LE would've known the other two buildings needed to be secured on their rooftops as well ?
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13635097/Secret-Service-trump-assassination-Thomas-Matthew-Crooks.html
'This isn't a big place, there's not a lot of buildings around here, why is everything not covered.'
If a rally attendee/ordinary person observed a lack in security, wouldn't the secret service already known and taken steps in advance.
At the very least, if the person in charge of the SS had assumed the local LE was in charge of the other buildings-- I'd have checked to make sure everything was fully protected, including all nearby buildings.
Omo.
On retrospect, in a country with so many guns like ours, maybe an outside venue was not wise.
But, on the other hand, outside it is possible for more interested people to participate, just as the people who alerted to the shooter did- they could just come informally with a picnic, and that would not be possible if it were indoors.
I'm sure SS alerted the campaign about the limits of a realistic perimeter.
It still seems like that rooftop would have been a good place for local LE to put their lead person- with a good view of the area. On retrospect, it also would have been a good place for the owner/lease to put private security just to prevent having spectators climb there dangerously. Who needs to deal with broken wrists and legs that could follow a group deciding to get a closer look from there.
But overall, I'm sure the campaign was aware of the benefits of the venue and the risks.
Even in rural USA, even with candidates heavily influenced by the NRA, it is more likely that a shooting not happen at a rally. The venue was chosen by the campaign- it was accessible and had many pluses. SS can give a safety assessment but they can't tell the campaign to reject a venue. The unlikely scenario that an assassin would come on the scene and fire shots did not dictate decision-making.
MOO
www.dailymail.co.uk
