What led to Saturday's shooting

[BonzoFury]

That’s a more accurate answer than simple incompetence.

Yes, a bit more complicated but the same concept. People didn’t do their job…in a big way which is the essence of choice #1. Allowing a guy to get on a roof in plain view isnt a technical glitch.

FYI My cousin is retired marine and law enforcement. He’s been involved in these kind of ops for a few visiting Presidents and VPs. Said communication between different agencies is always a concern… probably played a key part in this incident. Still...how do you ignore a guy on the roof? Somebody or bodies....are really bad at their job.

 

[seminole97]

View embedded media

The bomb makes this a little more questionable.

If you don’t want to download it, TM 31-210 is available for a few bucks cash at any self respecting Army-Navy surplus store.

https://www.militarynewbie.com/wp-c...ions-Handbook-1969-Department-of-the-Army.pdf

Tells you all the material you need and where to get them (grocer, hardware store, etc).

 

[alaskanseminole]

Try again. Seems that there are 3 possible explanations. Which is it?

Can you let us know who the 10 whackos are?

 

[Aardvark86]

1. At the end of the day, let's just say it: these things always involve people that are simply crazy and need serious mental help. I am always reticent to ever suggest that pretty much anything is a supervening cause relative to that.
2. The USSS is certainly not incompetent, but I have a really hard time coming up with an answer as to why the advance scouting here just had a huge whiff. Line of sight? From the top of a building? Really? As to the event day response, it's an easy lawyer's trick to wait for two minutes in silence to make it seem like a long time for a non response, but information flow in real time is much more difficult to validate, decide, and act on live.
3. Regardless of who the candidate was, our rhetorical tone has been too hot. And yes, that extends all the way back to Gabbie whatsherhame in Arizona years back. But here, bullseye, existential threats, and their Trumpian companions normalize the kind of "othering" that leads crazy people to not simply be crazy, but to do crazy things. And if you don't believe me, just look at how long it took this board - both sides of it - to go into "justification mode" for their particular "side". As I told my friend on Saturday evening, i feel sick to my stomach for my country.

 

[Flie]

Gee IDK, how about a cult of people spewing shit like "maga is taliban" for the last 3 years with zero checks.

Security was incompetent is a no brainer.

I didn't know that the shooter was a member of HBOT.

 

[BonzoFury]

Can you let us know who the 10 whackos are?

It won't allow changes once the voting had started. Just as well.

I think both 2 and 3 are long shots but #3 would be especially hard to pull off. How do you miss that precisely, especially when someone is moving? #2 could be accomplished just by doing nothing.

One theory I'm hearing more about is that since this guy was on the very buildling where there were setup inside, some may have thought he was a friendly... which explains the hesitance to take him out.

 

[BrunoMars420]

He was a troubled young man that read to kill a mockingbird. Really took him over the edge.

 

[Scruddy]

If you don’t want to download it, TM 31-210 is available for a few bucks cash at any self respecting Army-Navy surplus store.

https://www.militarynewbie.com/wp-c...ions-Handbook-1969-Department-of-the-Army.pdf

Tells you all the material you need and where to get them (grocer, hardware store, etc).

Does it show how to set up remote detonators too? I get it's not complicated tech, genuinely curious, if you know.

 

[goldmom]

A hoax would be absolutely insane. Killing someone for a stunt. What if he actually hit Trump? I understand the dude has lied so much that the first thought is to say it was a hoax, but that would absolutely nuts.

My thought is the most simple. A rogue child that was crazy enough to try it slipped through the Secret Service cracks.

Agree except about the “cracks”
They were giant gaping holes. Chasms.
An enormous freaking failure on the part of security. Amateur hour.

 

[seminole97]

Does it show how to set up remote detonators too? I get it's not complicated tech, genuinely curious, if you know.

Page 3 of that pdf I linked tells you that Fuses, Detonators and Delay Mechanisms are covered in section VI.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

He wasn't 3 inches off. He was shooting at an 8 inch target. You don't aim for the edge of the target. He was 7 on his closest shot and put a round 30ft right. And it was 400ft or 150 meters. The guy that killed him killed him from 450 meters.

Looks like the SS was closer to the shooter than he was to Trump, less than 450 meters for sure...

 

[goldmom]

A screwed up kid along with social media which anybody can fund support for anything.

And for you conspiracy types…IF you were a Deep
State type who fronted for a dark group serious about taking out the man, would you REALLY put it in the hands of a 20 year old who wasn’t a sure shot in such an obvious location?

Has no one here watched “The Shooter”? (Partially serious here 🤨)

 

[seminole97]

The USSS is certainly not incompetent, but I have a really hard time coming up with an answer as to why the advance scouting here just had a huge whiff. Line of sight? From the top of a building? Really?

So back away from indicting the entire entity and acknowledge the folks in charge at this site were demonstrably incompetent.

As to the event day response, it's an easy lawyer's trick to wait for two minutes in silence to make it seem like a long time for a non response, but information flow in real time is much more difficult to validate, decide, and act on live.

I get that and agree about the speed of events and confusion in communication, but we’re getting reports now that police took a picture of him on the roof nearly 30min prior.
From that point forward that roof should have had a cop, from somewhere (USSS, PD, etc), on it.
The vulnerability had already been exposed there is no excuse for it to have been continually overlooked.
Someone was in charge, and is responsible, and needs to be removed so they can’t screw up like this again.

3. Regardless of who the candidate was, our rhetorical tone has been too hot. And yes, that extends all the way back to Gabbie whatsherhame in Arizona years back. But here, bullseye, existential threats, and their Trumpian companions normalize the kind of "othering" that leads crazy people to not simply be crazy, but to do crazy things. And if you don't believe me, just look at how long it took this board - both sides of it - to go into "justification mode" for their particular "side". As I told my friend on Saturday evening, i feel sick to my stomach for my country.

If we ran a poll, “would you shoot Hitler?”, I’d expect a fairly high positive response rate.

Tiabbi wrote a piece a few weeks ago going over how the messaging was going to wring an assassin out of society.

 

[seminole97]

And for you conspiracy types…IF you were a Deep
State type who fronted for a dark group serious about taking out the man, would you REALLY put it in the hands of a 20 year old who wasn’t a sure shot in such an obvious location?

Has no one here watched “The Shooter”? (Partially serious here 🤨)

He’d have to be your patsy, with the real shooter on another vantage point taking the ‘real’ shot during the confusion.

 

[Aardvark86]

So back away from indicting the entire entity and acknowledge the folks in charge at this site were demonstrably incompetent.



I get that and agree about the speed of events and confusion in communication, but we’re getting reports now that police took a picture of him on the roof nearly 30min prior.
From that point forward that roof should have had a cop, from somewhere (USSS, PD, etc), on it.
The vulnerability had already been exposed there is no excuse for it to have been continually overlooked.
Someone was in charge, and is responsible, and needs to be removed so they can’t screw up like this again.



If we ran a poll, “would you shoot Hitler?”, I’d expect a fairly high positive response rate.

Tiabbi wrote a piece a few weeks ago going over how the messaging was going to wring an assassin out of society.

1. I think I did.
2. Obviously need to verify reports, but based on current sense of things, I think the 'fog of war' presumption still applies to the day-of response.
3. Perhaps, but (i) neither candidate is Hitler, and (ii) if you had run a 'would you shoot hitler?" poll in, say, 1935, I suspect the positive response rate would be considerably lower, which is to say that people do understand the difference between retrospective/historical fact and prospective rhetoric to at least some degree. (Never forget the t-axis.)

 

[BonzoFury]

1. I think I did.
2. Obviously need to verify reports, but based on current sense of things, I think the 'fog of war' presumption still applies to the day-of response.
3. Perhaps, but (i) neither candidate is Hitler, and (ii) if you had run a 'would you shoot hitler?" poll in, say, 1935, I suspect the positive response rate would be considerably lower, which is to say that people do understand the difference between retrospective/historical fact and prospective rhetoric to at least some degree. (Never forget the t-axis.)

The fog of war concept doesn’t apply. This was a controlled site where they setup and managed security in advance. There was also plenty of time to respond when people began to point out the perp on the roof.
Once the shot was fired, Ok. (Dare I point out that’s what they’re trained for) But it’s not an excuse for the incompetence which allowed for it to happen.

 

[seminole97]

2. Obviously need to verify reports, but based on current sense of things, I think the 'fog of war' presumption still applies to the day-of response.

I’m pretty understanding about the witnesses who saw him 2-3min prior and the police response.
It’s the 30 minutes earlier, ‘hey we have someone where no one should be’ and nothing was done about it that someone should lose their job over.
Someone already lost their life over it.

3. Perhaps, but (i) neither candidate is Hitler, and (ii) if you had run a 'would you shoot hitler?" poll in, say, 1935, I suspect the positive response rate would be considerably lower, which is to say that people do understand the difference between retrospective/historical fact and prospective rhetoric to at least some degree. (Never forget the t-axis.)

Run a poll on this site asking if either candidate is Hitler and let’s see the responses…

That comment being made today is done with the historical facts in mind.

Ask Chis or one of the other fringe lefties if they really mean it.

Someone took it seriously, and a whole bunch of people would be calling that kid a hero if he had better aim.

 

[Scruddy]

🤔

 

[KFsdisciple]

I should have assumed as much.

Maga. Go figure.

Not MAGA but not born yesterday either. You can be as disingenuous as you like, just don't get your panties in a wad when you get called on it.

 

[seminole97]

The fog of war concept doesn’t apply.

It does for the people in charge.
They’re not seeing everything with omniscience, they’re getting reports that are ‘telephone gamed’ before they arrive.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the first response to hearing the shooter was on the roof right before the shots were fired was, ‘we checked that out 30 minutes ago, and it was clear. Is this a new report, or old info?’

 

[noStemsnoSTICKS]

Not MAGA but not born yesterday either. You can be as disingenuous as you like, just don't get your panties in a wad when you get called on it.

Sorry, but not considering context as it relates to something that was said is a very maga thing to do.

So you bragging about not considering context as it relates to Biden's bullseye comment is right out of the maga playbook.

Nice work.

 

[seminole97]

View embedded media

🤔

My understanding is that the shooter was outside the metal detector perimeter.

This is probably not even the same person.

 

[fsu1jreed]

Sorry, but not considering context as it relates to something that was said is a very maga thing to do.

So you bragging about not considering context as it relates to Biden's bullseye comment is right out of the maga playbook.

Nice work.

And he's a hardcore MAGA

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Looks like the SS was closer to the shooter than he was to Trump, less than 450 meters for sure...

I'm likely wrong about the length of the return shot. It was likely feet also. This shows a slightly different angle that would have put them further away but the idea is the same.


Never the less. 150 meters with a 223 isn't shit.

And I'm telling you guys that rifle was suppressed, somebody knows about that gun.

Timeline of Trump rally shooting shows witnesses alerted officers 2 minutes before gunfire

Here's a timeline of the attempted assassination of former President Trump on Saturday, July 13, at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[KFsdisciple]

Sorry, but not considering context as it relates to something that was said is a very maga thing to do.

So you bragging about not considering context as it relates to Biden's bullseye comment is right out of the maga playbook.

Nice work.

I am giving the same consideration of context in this as Biden and the democrats and the media have given Trump since 2016.

Pretty shitty to be on the other end of it... now consider you just had your context cherry popped, this has been going on for years to the right.

 

[Aardvark86]

I’m pretty understanding about the witnesses who saw him 2-3min prior and the police response.
It’s the 30 minutes earlier, ‘hey we have someone where no one should be’ and nothing was done about it that someone should lose their job over.
Someone already lost their life over it.



Run a poll on this site asking if either candidate is Hitler and let’s see the responses…

That comment being made today is done with the historical facts in mind.

Ask Chis or one of the other fringe lefties if they really mean it.

Someone took it seriously, and a whole bunch of people would be calling that kid a hero if he had better aim.

I think on #2, there's a fair basis for your argument, if the 30 minutes thing is in fact true. And yes, someone should lose their job - definitely on the advance team, and maybe on the day-of team - at least to the extent that it's actually possible to lose a government job.

Re: #3, that's my point. Even Chis, in all of his full Twitterx glory, understands that the Hitler label is in fact rhetoric. And people don't seriously "shoot" based on rhetoric. [Side note - I think in one of these threads, he may have set a personal record for number of consecutive posts without an embedded tweet, at like "5" or so.]

 

[BonzoFury]

It does for the people in charge.
They’re not seeing everything with omniscience, they’re getting reports that are ‘telephone gamed’ before they arrive.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the first response to hearing the shooter was on the roof right before the shots were fired was, ‘we checked that out 30 minutes ago, and it was clear. Is this a new report, or old info?’

I guess we’ll disagree on this one. I see the concept of “fog of war” representing the confusion and chaos that happens during battle. Artillery shells, gunfire from multiple directions, soldiers/tanks/jets advancing.

This was still very much a managed and monitored situation until the shots were fired. If Whoever is in charge can’t handle that they shouldn’t be in charge. They don’t have the leadership capabilies necessary.

 

[noStemsnoSTICKS]

I am giving the same consideration of context in this as Biden and the democrats and the media have given Trump since 2016.

Pretty shitty to be on the other end of it... now consider you just had your context cherry popped, this has been going on for years to the right.

No.

Biden's use of the term, "Bullseye" was in reference to all the negative attention he'd received for his poor debate performance. Which was terrible, and for what it's worth he deserved the negative attention. But his use of the word bullseye was referring to how he wanted the media to turn their attention to trump. If you go back and review it, you should be able to decipher that. He didn't literally mean let's point a sniper riffle with a scope/bullseye at trump and shoot him. But you're saying (above) that that is exactly what he meant.

And by the way, Biden has since admitted it was a mistake to use that word. Show me where trump admitted a single mistake for anything. Ever.

 

[KFsdisciple]

No.

Biden's use of the term, "Bullseye" was in reference to all the negative attention he'd received for his poor debate performance. Which was terrible, and for what it's worth he deserved the negative attention. But his use of the word bullseye was referring to how he wanted the media to turn their attention to trump. If you go back and review it, you should be able to decipher that. He didn't literally mean let's point a sniper riffle with a scope/bullseye at trump and shoot him. But you're saying (above) that that is exactly what he meant.

And by the way, Biden has since admitted it was a mistake to use that word. Show me where trump admitted a single mistake for anything. Ever.

I know what he meant, and yeah it was a poor choice of words from a guy who has equivocated his political opponent to Hitler, and his supporters as Nazis. But you want context now but had no issue with a lack of context for the last 7 years.

It only takes 1 loner with a gun and a line of sight to take something out of context and blow off a guy's ear.

 

[Scruddy]

 

[noStemsnoSTICKS]

I know what he meant, and yeah it was a poor choice of words from a guy who has equivocated his political opponent to Hitler, and his supporters as Nazis. But you want context now but had no issue with a lack of context for the last 7 years.

It only takes 1 loner with a gun and a line of sight to take something out of context and blow off a guy's ear.

Fair enough.

I will agree with you (hopefully) that the language used by both sides is far too extreme and volatile, and I wish it were more fact based.

 

[BonzoFury]

Fair enough.

I will agree with you (hopefully) that the language used by both sides is far too extreme and volatile, and I wish it were more fact based.

Now, if only we can get a few million more people and the media to follow your lead, fellas.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Fair enough.

I will agree with you (hopefully) that the language used by both sides is far too extreme and volatile, and I wish it were more fact based.

Thank you, and yes, I'd like to see both sides focus more on policy and facts and less on personal attacks and hyperbole.

Look no further than the thread about capping rent, I gave Biden props for the idea.

 

[Scruddy]

 

[SeaPA]

It won't allow changes once the voting had started. Just as well.

I think both 2 and 3 are long shots but #3 would be especially hard to pull off. How do you miss that precisely, especially when someone is moving? #2 could be accomplished just by doing nothing.

One theory I'm hearing more about is that since this guy was on the very buildling where there were setup inside, some may have thought he was a friendly... which explains the hesitance to take him out.

It was a setup by the trump camp. He wasn't actually hit by the bullet, when he hit the ground he cut himself with a small, concealed razor blade, as used to be very common in champeenship rasslin. trump's already bragged about getting away with shooting someone on 5th Avenue without losing any votes; surely his followers wouldn't care if he had one of them shot at a rally if it helped promote the cause.

 

[KFsdisciple]

It was a setup by the trump camp. He wasn't actually hit by the bullet, when he hit the ground he cut himself with a small, concealed razor blade, as used to be very common in champeenship rasslin. trump's already bragged about getting away with shooting someone on 5th Avenue without losing any votes; surely his followers wouldn't care if he had one of them shot at a rally if it helped promote the cause.

One of the blessings of liberty is the ability to get on a message board and type out some of the dumbest stuff imaginable.

God bless America

 

[seminole97]

I guess we’ll disagree on this one. I see the concept of “fog of war” representing the confusion and chaos that happens during battle. Artillery shells, gunfire from multiple directions, soldiers/tanks/jets advancing.

The ‘fog of war’ is referring to the confusion that arises from what the person in charge can’t see everything with their own eyes. So they’re relying on second hand information and information delayed by various degrees in order to put together their total picture of right now.

There was a great little civil war game I played years ago, similar in format to the Ultimate General series of games. They introduced a cool mechanic where your orders wouldn’t be instantly transmitted. If you told a brigade to reposition a rider left the general and raced toward the brigade to relay the order. If you changed your mind about where that brigade should deploy and sent a countermanding order you’d have to wait for that rider to get to them and relay the change, likely while they’re already conducting the initial maneuver.

Never seen another game introduce an OODA Loop like it, but it was really cool in how it affected your decision making (and timeliness!).

This was still very much a managed and monitored situation until the shots were fired. If Whoever is in charge can’t handle that they shouldn’t be in charge. They don’t have the leadership capabilies necessary.

The egregious oversights should be enough to get the person in charge fired. Their incompetence is literally fatal for others.

 

[BonzoFury]

The ‘fog of war’ is referring to the confusion that arises from what the person in charge can’t see everything with their own eyes. So they’re relying on second hand information and information delayed by various degrees in order to put together their total picture of right now.

There was a great little civil war game I played years ago, similar in format to the Ultimate General series of games. They introduced a cool mechanic where your orders wouldn’t be instantly transmitted. If you told a brigade to reposition a rider left the general and raced toward the brigade to relay the order. If you changed your mind about where that brigade should deploy and sent a countermanding order you’d have to wait for that rider to get to them and relay the change, likely while they’re already conducting the initial maneuver.

Never seen another game introduce an OODA Loop like it, but it was really cool in how it affected your decision making (and timeliness!).


The egregious oversights should be enough to get the person in charge fired. Their incompetence is literally fatal for others.

Sounds like an interesting game and very enlightening. Understanding your fog of war definition, we're basically on the same page… the point remains. With the available audio and visual technology (especially for the Secret Service) no reason that communication shouldn’t be quick and effective if managed properly. This isn’t the Civil War where you wait for a horseback messenger. A group of junior high kids with cell phones could’ve figured it out in 5-6 texts.

 

[BonzoFury]

So, we're up to 11% each in the "planned event" camps.

I think I know how the "trump was set up" folks would explain it...basically that the kid was allowed to get in place to take his shot by a complicit SS. I'm more curious about the "hoax" folks. SeaPA gave us a little theory but what about the shooter and the pic with the bullet whizzing by Trump's head?

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Now they're saying Iran had a hit on Trump. So if that's the case maybe that might explain things. They recruit this kid they pay him.... or her. They contact him covertly. No record of it on the interwebs