PA - Assassination attempt, shooting injures former POTUS Donald Trump, leaves 1 spectator deceased two in critical condition, 13 July 2024 #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Watching Inside Edition now. A former army ranger sniper-agent who trained with SS guys said they can get five bullets through a quarter at 100 yards. I have been decrying the SS all day, but I do want to take a moment to recognize the counter-sniper who did take out the shooter within 3 seconds from 140 yards, and prior to more injuries or fatalities. It was wicked hot Saturday and he had to have been on that roof for hours in heavy uniform.

He wasn’t responsible for all security that day. He did his job, and did it well. Grateful for him and his response.

jmo
 
Something I keep thinking about...

Imo, Trump was exposed multiple times/at multiple points while surrounded by Secret Service (height differences, him wanting to signal to the crowd).

He's tall, also has light hair, both of which stand out, especially among a sea of dark suits.

For situations like these, would it make sense for the group that would bodily surround him (or anyone they are tasked with protecting) to have some kind of kevlar-reinforced cover (small blanket size maybe?) to drape over his head and shoulders while they hustle him out of the way?

I am not sure how feasible it is but I feel like it would make the protected person less visible for continued assault until they could get to a safer location.

Just thoughts as all the protective actions are under scrutiny and may be changed or modified going forward.

Imo.
Typically the lectern itself is bulletproof, and Trump is known to wear a bullet proof vest. That vest wouldn’t have stopped the rounds fired at him though.

Some sort of Kevlar cover would likely be incredibly heavy, and thus impractical. A vest alone weighs around 5-8 pounds, so something larger just wouldn’t work. It also wouldn’t stop that round, which would require ballistic plates.
 
Last thing I’d like to say regarding the disparity in the Secret Service’s protection of former presidents etc.

This apparently is a flexible situation, as outgoing presidents often change the rules.

Nixon is the only one who declined protection.

Typically the children of a former President are only protected until they are 16, but Obama made some changes to that, and Trump made changes, as well. He insisted that his adult children be protected for six months AFTER he was out of office and that was done. Barron was 14 so he was still protected at the time.

IMO though it has to end sometime. John Tyler was President twenty years BEFORE Lincoln and he still has an actual GRANDSON who is now 95. (They all lived long lives and had children when they were elderly). Until recently Tyler actually had TWO elderly grandsons.

In its way it would’ve been great had JFK Jr., for example, still had SS protection and then he wouldn’t have died in his plane wreck. As it is I recall many citizens who were upset that so many resources were deployed to find him, but Clinton said that he’s a former president’s son and deserved to be found.

If we insist that every one attached to a president deserves endless protection, we will wind up IMO with inferior agents as there is so much training involved and there would be an endless amount of protectees.

Yes, of course this was a near tragedy for Trump and certainly a tragedy for Corey and his family.

Yet this protection expanding exponentially is really not sustainable. There is only one President at a time. He and his wife deserve protection.

So does Trump. In hindsight he either didn’t receive the correct amount, or someone dropped an exceedingly important ball.

JMO

ETA: a clipping from Wikipedia if anyone is interested in how Tyler still has a grandson 234 years after his own birth. I don’t want to go off-topic but making my point about the families of presidents and how long protection should last.

IMG_9516.png
 
Last edited:

"Yet nearly 48 hours after the shooting, investigators are struck by the lack of leads they’re finding about Crooks’ mindset and possible motives. Even after successfully breaking into his phone and searching his computer, scouring his search history and bedroom, and interviewing his family and friends, agents still haven’t found evidence that would suggest political or ideological impetus for the shooting, law enforcement sources told CNN."
 
But still! The President or former Pres was due to speak!
Wish I could post that link about the SS that day. Oh well. It’s history now.
Looks like the three families of the victims can sue and easily win.
Respectfully, my guess is that a court would find the Secret Service had no legal duty to protect anyone other than the candidate/former president. Depending on who knew what when and what they did, there may be a claim against local law enforcement. But suing the government at any level over any issue is NEVER easy.
 
Respectfully, my guess is that a court would find the Secret Service had no legal duty to protect anyone other than the candidate/former president. Depending on who knew what when and what they did, there may be a claim against local law enforcement. But suing the government at any level over any issue is NEVER easy.
With respect, good law team might ferret out some details we don’t know. You can sue the government. That isn’t against the law. Didn’t say it was easy.
 

"It’s unclear how Crooks assembled the explosive devices found in his car. Investigators parsing through his online search history haven’t found any indication of him researching how to make home-made explosives, law enforcement officials said."

Seems like LE is revealing some case detailsupdates, example phone, search history, etc.? Seems odd, unusual, imo, esp so early in investigation.

——

Eta:

"Yet nearly 48 hours after the shooting, investigators are struck by the lack of leads they’re finding about Crooks’ mindset and possible motives. Even after successfully breaking into his phone and searching his computer, scouring his search history and bedroom, and interviewing his family and friends, agents still haven’t found evidence that would suggest political or ideological impetus for the shooting, law enforcement sources told CNN."
 
Respectfully, my guess is that a court would find the Secret Service had no legal duty to protect anyone other than the candidate/former president. Depending on who knew what when and what they did, there may be a claim against local law enforcement. But suing the government at any level over any issue is NEVER easy.
I think that is the case. I would think it would be local agencies/venues who are responsible for protection of the crowd.
 
ok, he had to look suspicious carrying a ladder, but then again there is video of him climbing on the roof so I guess nothing is really surprising anymore.
Well, the CNN article did disclaim they can't confirm if TC even used the ladder or ammo purchased on Sunday so I guess there's that.

I'm struggling with the image of this young man packing a rifle and a ladder from his vehicle to the grounds without one person approaching him. This makes no sense to me. JMO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
178
Guests online
2,232
Total visitors
2,410

Forum statistics

Threads
599,717
Messages
18,098,590
Members
230,911
Latest member
Cynthialynn13
Back
Top