• ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    126
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    They apparently decided not to secure the roof that the assassin ended up shooting from because it was sloped and so they were afraid.

    I’m not making that up.

    “That building in particular has a sloped roof, at its highest point. And so, there’s a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn’t want to put somebody up on a sloped roof. And so, the decision was made to secure the building, from inside,” [U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle] said.

    She’s also trying to throw the local cops under the bus.

    “In this particular instance, we did share support for that particular site and that the Secret Service was responsible for the inner perimeter,” Cheatle said. “And then we sought assistance from our local counterparts for the outer perimeter. There was local police in that building – there was local police in the area that were responsible for the outer perimeter of the building.”

    • DragonTypeWyvern
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Idk that saying “they didn’t do their jobs” when they didn’t do their jobs is really throwing them under the bus. SS counts on local law enforcement to do things, it’s just a fact.

      Ignoring that one of their snipers saw him pull out a rangefinder though…

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        If you’re the Secret Service, you rely on small-town cops to prevent a sniper from shooting Trump, and those small-town cops don’t do a very good job, that’s your fault not theirs.

        • DragonTypeWyvern
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          I think you have an unrealistic expectation of the size and funding of the SS, but they also clearly have unrealistic expectations of the competency of cops (any) so maybe that’s fair anyways.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        Ignoring that one of their snipers saw him pull out a rangefinder though…

        Well just seeing that probably shouldn’t be enough to use lethal force. At that point he’s effectively just a guy looking through binoculars or a monocular.

        • DragonTypeWyvern
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          You’d think the counter-sniper would maybe keep his sights on the guy pulling out sniper equipment.

          Especially when he pulls out a fucking rifle.

        • lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Then you ought to have someone remove him nonviolently, just to make sure he’s not a threat. Maybe send a cop up there to instruct him to get down?

          Cop is threatened with a gun

          Okay at that point you’d expect a radio call to go out “Person on X roof just threatened a Law Enforcement officer with a gun” which I’d consider license to fire.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Funny but I’d really rather reserve the SS title for if Trump gets reelected and puts together his “special DOJ” task force again.

    • Ack@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      4 months ago

      Wow. That’s… I don’t even know. Funny? Sad? Ridiculous? Maybe all of the above.

      • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s an obvious flaw in Secret Service protocol. If there is nothing in protocol that requires securing that roof then it’s gaurenteed that there are many other flaws that can be exploited.

    • evidences@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      That building in particular has a sloped roof, at its highest point. And so, there’s a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn’t want to put somebody up on a sloped roof.

      Uhh what the hell, the snipers that took the dude out were on a sloped roof behind the stage? Do they have a one sloped roof per venue rule?

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Forget the building. I want to know how the shooter even got close with a gun? I would not be shocked that Trump refused to allow metal detectors at the entrances.