PA - Assassination attempt, shooting injures former POTUS Donald Trump, leaves 1 spectator deceased two in critical condition, 13 July 2024 #4

[GRT]

Overall, I think everyone tried their best. No one needs to be fired. Just stop having outdoor events. There are too many military grade weapons and ammo available w/o restrictions to the general public these days. It's too easy for people with mental illness to access these weapons of war, become proficient in their use and conceal them as they enter public areas where they kill large numbers of people indiscriminately and with great accuracy. This situation exists in every community these days.

Respectfully snipped by me for focus.

I would fire everyone (local LE and SS) who was in a position to make a difference. I would fire whomever decided the building was outside the protected perimeter. I would fire anyone who received notification that a suspicious person was on the property but did not pursue it. I would fire any officer or agent who was aware of Crooks but did not notify Trump's personal guards to keep him indoors until the situation could be determined.

I know the officers and agents couldn't forsee what happened but I think firings send a message to new agents and officers to be on their toes to a higher degree.

I also agree with you about trying to hold rallies indoors when possible. Barring that--I think candidates and elected persons may have to resort to using bulletproof bubbles when appearing in public like that.

JMOO

 

[Betty P]

Respectfully snipped by me for focus.

I would fire everyone (local LE and SS) who was in a position to make a difference. I would fire whomever decided the building was outside the protected perimeter. I would fire anyone who received notification that a suspicious person was on the property but did not pursue it. I would fire any officer or agent who was aware of Crooks but did not notify Trump's personal guards to keep him indoors until the situation could be determined.

I know the officers and agents couldn't forsee what happened but I think firings send a message to new agents and officers to be on their toes to a higher degree.

I also agree with you about trying to hold rallies indoors when possible. Barring that--I think candidates and elected persons may have to resort to using bulletproof bubbles when appearing in public like that.

JMOO

I prefer they wait until the investigation is complete and there's strong evidence of malfeasance, etc. before firing is considered. In the U.S. employees have the right to fair and accurate reviews and due process. If mass firings is the only way an organization can train employees, I'd say there's a problem with management. JMO

 

[Sundog]

There are conflicting reports regarding the social media posts.

MSN

Yes, the FBI rep testified before the Senate yesterday that although they are having trouble accessing the shooter's encrypted email accounts, they have accessed two accounts that may belong to the shooter, and the two accounts they have accessed "espouse differing points of view" on topics such as illegal immigration, etc. On one account, for example, he is against illegal immigration, and on the other account he is in favor of illegal immigration. So if these are the shooter's accounts, then he is expressing very different points of view on his various accounts.

 

[GRT]

I prefer they wait until the investigation is complete and there's strong evidence of malfeasance, etc. before firing is considered. In the U.S. employees have the right to fair and accurate reviews and due process. If mass firings is the only way an organization can train employees, I'd say there's a problem with management. JMO

That's a good point. I, too, think the investigation should be completed first. But I'd set the bar lower than just malfeasance. I'd set it at not noticing a problem they should have noticed. I feel as though they should be held to stricter standards than others.

I think SS and LE will reevaluate their policies and standards after this to better protect the people they are supposed to protect.

You know, our society went through a phase where LE was made out to be the bad guy, and I think that affected how officers and agents reacted in many situations. No one wants to be the guy who shoots a friendly or innocent person. Riots have happened for similar events.

But, there has to be a meeting of the minds. I think we can expect our trained pros to act with discretion while still doing their jobs to the best of their ability. JMOO

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I prefer they wait until the investigation is complete and there's strong evidence of malfeasance, etc. before firing is considered. In the U.S. employees have the right to fair and accurate reviews and due process. If mass firings is the only way an organization can train employees, I'd say there's a problem with management. JMO

Perhaps you mean some other word, but someone can be incompetent but incompetence at their job doesn't mean they've engaged in malfeasance. Malfeasance is more along the lines of criminal activity or official misconduct, which someone can be totally not cut out for their job without being a criminal at work nor engaging in official misconduct. I doubt anyone at the Secret Service or elsewhere that's been connected to this has engaged in malfeasance but that doesn't mean those they are supposed to be protect are safe because incompetents are responsible for protecting them, so more lives could be lost without anyone engaging in malfeasance.

 

[GRT]

Yes, the FBI rep testified before the Senate yesterday that although they are having trouble accessing the shooter's encrypted email accounts, they have accessed two accounts that may belong to the shooter, and the two accounts they have accessed "espouse differing points of view" on topics such as illegal immigration, etc. On one account, for example, he is against illegal immigration, and on the other account he is in favor of illegal immigration. So if these are the shooter's accounts, then he is expressing very differentn points of view on his various accounts.

His parents are unusually quiet. I've read that they're "cooperating" with LE, but since he still lived with them--I would think they would have some idea of the demons he lived with. Didn't his dad report him and the gun as missing?

 

[Sundog]

I prefer they wait until the investigation is complete and there's strong evidence of malfeasance, etc. before firing is considered. In the U.S. employees have the right to fair and accurate reviews and due process. If mass firings is the only way an organization can train employees, I'd say there's a problem with management. JMO

So put them on administrative leave until they get their due process, but get them out of their positions because they failed at their mission to protect our former president and current presidential candidate.

 

[Elley Mae]

Respectfully snipped by me for focus.

I would fire everyone (local LE and SS) who was in a position to make a difference. I would fire whomever decided the building was outside the protected perimeter. I would fire anyone who received notification that a suspicious person was on the property but did not pursue it. I would fire any officer or agent who was aware of Crooks but did not notify Trump's personal guards to keep him indoors until the situation could be determined.

I know the officers and agents couldn't forsee what happened but I think firings send a message to new agents and officers to be on their toes to a higher degree.

I also agree with you about trying to hold rallies indoors when possible. Barring that--I think candidates and elected persons may have to resort to using bulletproof bubbles when appearing in public like that.

JMOO

One of the first should be the person/ppl responsible for leaving the agr site out of the perimeter 150 yards away.

Jmo

 

[Sundog]

It also needs to be mentioned that the SS agents who were in charge of the operational details of the Butler rally put their colleagues at risk of losing their lives as well. Not only was President Trump at risk for losing his life, but so were the SS agents who made up his security detail. And the rally attendees, of course, who were at risk with two very badly injured, one lost his life, and others were seriously traumatized by the events of that day.

If a SS agent had been shot that day along with Trump as they tried to protect him on the stage, I wonder what actions would have been taken by Cheatle and/or Rowe?

 

[Ruminations]

5

We'll see what the investigation reveals. The FBI memo about the GAB (whatever that is) account doesn't say anything about the content of Crooks postings.

SS says the account they're investigating contained a lot of anti-semitic posts. Crooks was possibly posting in these hard to find account for reasons of confidentiality. That would be logical if he was posting anti-semitic and neo Nazi content. Hiding opinions seems less logical if he was posting about allowing immigrants to come to the US for asylum.

This is such a polarized environment. Families can be fractured politically, and who knows if his thoughts, or experimental/developmental thoughts depending on when they were posted, had the potential to divide up the adults in his life. That would be one reason for secrecy.

That said, I tend to see anti-immigration and pro-nazi as very inter-related, being that our immigration system was reformed after WWII to prevent participating in genocide. Asylum visas have an anti-nazi function. If I were an adult in his life, I would be gentle about it, but I'd tell him the policies his immigrant views suggest just are not the way we treat humans. I would probably draw a line to white supremacists. Gentle as I am with young people, he may have chosen to hide these thoughts from me. And maybe he had more reactionary push back.

MOO

 

[SpanishInquisition]

It also needs to be mentioned that the SS agents who were in charge of the operational details of the Butler rally put their colleagues at risk of losing their lives as well. Not only was President Trump at risk for losing his life, but so were the SS agents who made up his security detail. And the rally attendees, of course, who were at risk with two very badly injured, one lost his life, and others were seriously traumatized by the events of that day.

If a SS agent had been shot that day along with Trump as they tried to protect him on the stage, I wonder what actions would have been taken by Cheatle and/or Rowe?

I do think now that there might be some malfeasance involved, but not necessarily with the event itself. The countersniper whistleblower email deletion could be serious and I could see that as official misconduct/criminal. It does also make me wonder if anyone at the Secret Service is destroying other official documents. There's potentially some huge - even rising to the level of being criminal - management issues with the Secret Service not directly related to the shooting, but could go into why the Secret Service is in the state that it is in.

 

[rockthecasbah]

I also agree with you about trying to hold rallies indoors when possible. Barring that--I think candidates and elected persons may have to resort to using bulletproof bubbles when appearing in public like that.

JMOO

Have these been used by other presidents?

 

[Sundog]

Have these been used by other presidents?

Yes, Obama had lots of outdoor rallies with tens of thousands of attendees, like Trump. And the threat level was high for him, also like Trump.

 

[Ruminations]

Because little girls and little boys are biologically different. Boys are taught from birth to be strong, to protect their families and many time their countries. Look, I’m not denigrating a woman who serves. But like I said, I’m old. Women used to serve in supportive ways, nursing or clerical,etc. and biologically a female is the emotionally supportive one. Men are the more aggressive, just generally speaking. I would prefer a man protecting me at any time because I am not strong. And so if a male or female signs up for the job in secret service, they might have strong emotions that people died because of their lack of training, strength, planning, aggressiveness to protect the victims by making sure the shooter was taken out since they had time to do so. There were multiple witnesses to prove that! I cannot say I am proud of the way the SS handled this.

IMO, little boys and little girls are far more similar than different.

Some girls are more feminine than others. Some boys are more masculine than others.

Some girls are outright masculine, and some boys are outright feminine.

Some people are born with ambiguous genitalia and/or genes for masculine or feminine.

Some people with no apparent ambiguity at all are not the gender they were assigned at birth.

You can't assume a persons personality or abilities based on gender, nor can you assume gender.

Then there is this: jobs with feminine functions are traditionally paid more poorly than jobs with masculine functions. So expecting people to conform to gender is tantamount to expecting to enforce an economic disparity.

Then there is this: expecting people to conform leads to the problem of people deciding it is their prerogative to judge others on their gender conformity. IMO, on this very board we are nearly bullying that secret service agent, even when Trump, not the first one I would have guessed, is telling people to lay off.

She is a human being. She is a secret service agent. She could have died that day, as would have been her duty. She is a hero.

MOO

 

[Sundog]

IMO, on this very board we are nearly bullying that secret service agent, even when Trump, not the first one I would have guessed, is telling people to lay off.

She is a human being. She is a secret service agent. She could have died that day, as would have been her duty. She is a hero.

<Snpped for focus>

I think people have legitimate concerns about the height of one of the SS agents who was on President Trump's detail at the Butler rally and the impact that could have on his protection. But I don't blame the agent who was hired by the Secret Service and presumably assigned to this protectee that day. It is the responsibility of the SS agency to set the qualifications of the agents they hire for this kind of protective detail work, and if the height standard wasn't one of the qualifications then the agent is not to blame but the agency, itself, is to blame for not setting appropriate standards in their hiring and/or their specific assignments of protectees.

 

[Betty P]

That's a good point. I, too, think the investigation should be completed first. But I'd set the bar lower than just malfeasance. I'd set it at not noticing a problem they should have noticed. I feel as though they should be held to stricter standards than others.

I think SS and LE will reevaluate their policies and standards after this to better protect the people they are supposed to protect.

You know, our society went through a phase where LE was made out to be the bad guy, and I think that affected how officers and agents reacted in many situations. No one wants to be the guy who shoots a friendly or innocent person. Riots have happened for similar events.

But, there has to be a meeting of the minds. I think we can expect our trained pros to act with discretion while still doing their jobs to the best of their ability. JMOO

Agree, there's probably a standard in place that covers negligence or something similar. I forgot to include it. SS usually reevaluates their procedures after these incidents. There's always a lot to learn. As you can tell from those who testified in Congress yesterday, they're a no-nonsense bunch and take their responsibilities very seriously. They're constantly adapting and updating their procedures. I recall 9-11 really changed things, especially in DC. But they don't work in isolation, they have to rely on other LE, the military, security and staff of elected officials and campaigns, etc.

 

[Elley Mae]

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/22/g-s1-12604/secret-service-congress-trump

 

[Simply Southern]

A Secret Service sniper claims that another assassination attempt against a presidential candidate seems inevitable before Election Day because the attack on former President Donald Trump exposed the weakness in Secret Service security, according to a scathing letter circulating within the agency.

“This agency NEEDS to change, if not now, WHEN? The NEXT assassination attempt in 30 days?” read the letter, first published by RealClearPolitics.

“We all SHOULD expect another attempt to happen before November. We’ve exposed our inability to protect our leaders due to our leadership.”

Secret Service sniper warns another assassination attempt could be imminent as agency’s failures are exposed

The sniper demanded the resignation of high level supervisors, whom the agent accused of failing rank-and-file Secret Service staff.

nypost.com

Senator Blackburn ask Rowe, point blank ..... WHO deleted the email from the SS server?
Rowe ....No response
She asked if he had read the letter and his thoughts?
Rowe ... I'm hurt (moo, if he's hurt, emotionally upset and grieving he cannot effectively lead. I thought Marines were tougher than this.)

It is my opinion, the sniper who composed this letter, was a desperate attempt the save future lives. Based on testimony from Rowe, I believe the information provided.

Throughout the hearing, Rowe stated, "it was local LE responsibility". He clearly is not willing to accept responsibility. He was repeatedly reminded SS was the lead agency and 100% responsible.

It was 17 days later and Rowe did not release any new information. Everything he covered, the media covered first.

Moo

 

[Simply Southern]

https://www.wpbstv.org/watch-sen-blackburn-questions-acting-secret-service-director-on-trump-rally-shooting-probe/

Thank you for posting Senator Blackburns questions.

I hope many will watch this very short clip and experience Rowe defending his .... hurt, raw emotion employees.

Moo

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Yes, the FBI rep testified before the Senate yesterday that although they are having trouble accessing the shooter's encrypted email accounts, they have accessed two accounts that may belong to the shooter, and the two accounts they have accessed "espouse differing points of view" on topics such as illegal immigration, etc. On one account, for example, he is against illegal immigration, and on the other account he is in favor of illegal immigration. So if these are the shooter's accounts, then he is expressing very different points of view on his various accounts.

It's possible that he was trolling and doing that as a form of entertainment rather than it being his actual beliefs. Like he might have even had those two accounts argue in order to try and generate discussion.