That picture of the bullet whizzing past his head…if that had hit him the photographer would’ve caught a horrendous picture
Evangelicals lapping up trumps miracle survival, will only strengthen his support with that group
It's inevitable that there will be violent repurcussions.
Donald Trump now needs to control his followers
THe insurrection guy? Fat chance.
America has issues
https://twitter.com/WalmartThomist/status/1812260953464983603?t=-OIt5wiqM9PXsWsjAFXDQA&s=19
what would be the reaction to hearing Putin had been shot? Or the Ayatollah? Or Kim Jon Un ? Or in the past, Polh Pot, or Mugabe, etc
Celebration ? Why any difference with Tronald Dump ?
It's interesting. I remember when Boris Johnson was hospitalised with covid and I found myself not wishing he would die, but aware that if he did, I wouldn't be hugely disappointed.
Anyway, I guess the answer to the question above is that while the people cited are arguably in a similar category to Trump, the context is different. They are all despotic autocrats, while Trump operates within a functioning democracy - even if he wishes it functioned differently.
Whether you think it would be better for him not to exist or not, the impact on a democracy of the assassination of a wildly-popular public figure is potentially huge. Applaud it and you're effectively endorsing the idea that political violence is an acceptable part of politics. Of course Trump himself has arguably already done that, but that's beside the point.
It's a bit like doping in elite cycling. Just because one, dysfunctional individual does it, shouldn't somehow legitimise it for everyone else and if you do allow that to be the case, you change the context of bike racing completely. So basically, in really simple terms, if it's okay to shoot Trump, how is not also okay to shoot Biden, Harris, or any other political figure.
That doesn't stop you from having dark thoughts that maybe the world would be better off without Trump - I think that's just a normal human reaction - but rationally you shouldn't endorse violent assassination on all sorts of levels, but fundamentally because it cannot form part of a functioning democracy.
All of which is actually pretty obvious, no?
Many will foresee a stronger erosion of rights
Finally got around to watching “Vice” last night… sort of Adam Curtis as if done for more laughs. Recommended.
Re: successful assassination.
There's a significant minority of people in the US who 'know' that this was a Democrat/communist/globalist (they're the same thing) attempt on the life on the man they already think should be coming to the end of his second term. They're more than ready to take up arms to defend what they think is the real USA. I would imagine that the security detail for Gretchen Whitmar, and Nancy Pelosi (for example) would have been re-doubled as a result. Alex Jones, Nick Fuentes et al, are already telling their listeners that there will be another attempt at both Trump and the RNC.
the authorities could only identify the shooter using his DNA…. that was a pretty RAPID result, as they said that the aforementioned shooter was not known to them…. they must have had his DNA somewhere on the database…
I think, but I can't find the article now, that the cops/whoever said they identified the gunman not from ID in his pockets but "by other means". That might not be DNA. I think there was a suggestion the gun was registered to his father - so perhaps the serial number could be immediately searched? I have no idea how accessible that data is. Or it could be something as simple as a local cop recognising him from around town.
One thing I would like to see come out of this sorry story is for America to finally acknowledge that the gun laws are too lax.
There have been 115 shootings in schools this year
https://everytownresearch.org/maps/gunfire-on-school-grounds/
About 40, 000 killed by guns every year
I suspect the result of this latest will be an increase in gun sales
So the shooter was too far away to get an accurate shot, although had he managed to get to a closer position he would have likely succeeded, and he is very quickly shot dead by counter snipers which ends his assassination attempt, but his represents a security failure? I don't understand why.
Donald Trump is an ex president, surely the resources available for his security should not be limitless? Already along with counter snipers there are apparently several drones and robotic dogs available for his security. It all seemed to have worked fairly well yesterday and he didn't die in the assassination attempt.
The conspiracy theories pretty much write themselves on this one
So the shooter was too far away to get an accurate shot
He was about 120m away which is pretty damn close and well inside the effective range for a rifle. "not dying" is the bare minimum and generally they are expected to achieve "not bleeding".
It is a serious failing.
It all seemed to have worked fairly well yesterday and he didn’t die in the assassination attempt.
The only things that stopped the Donald's head turning into a cloud of pink mist was incredible luck. Absolutely nothing to do with the Secret Service. A breath of wind, the tiniest movement of his head etc. and things would have been very different.
The Secret Service failed. This wasn't some city centre with hundreds of roofs to check, it was a rural location with a handful. It was beyond negligent to have failed to check one of the most prominent in easy rifle range and with clear LOS to the podium.
Saying that is doing your job 'fairly well' is like saying Kwasi Kwarteng did fairly well at being chancellor of the exchequer
So the shooter was too far away to get an accurate shot, although had he managed to get to a closer position he would have likely succeeded, and he is very quickly shot dead by counter snipers which ends his assassination attempt, but his represents a security failure? I don’t understand why.
He was only 150m away, which is plenty close enough for an accurate shot. And he got multiple shots away. That he failed is pure good fortune for Trump and his security detail. There are some suggestions that his aiming was disrupted by a police officer climbing towards the roof and he ended up hurrying his shots.
Reports suggest that the shooter was spotted well in advance by members of the public, who tried to alert police and Secret Service, but even after security saw him, they did not immediately remove Trump from the stage.
In the immediate aftermath, Trump gets bundled to the deck but then, inexplicably, they allow him to stand up, retrieve his shoes, do his pose before guiding him away. Even if they knew the first shooter was dead, he might not be the only one.
So the shooter was too far away to get an accurate shot,
A recreational shooter with a hunting rifle can put a bullet inside a one inch circle at that range. You don't need to be a "trained Marksman" or a "Sniper"
I
According to the Washington Post, the outer perimeter security is handled by local police as routine policy, with the Secret Service working inside that perimeter. A member of the public saw the shooter on the roof and told a local cop, who tried to climb onto the roof but had to bail because the shooter pointed his gun at the cop (who needed to use both hands to pull himself up onto the roof so couldn't hold a gun.) The shooter then started firing at Trump, but I guess he was in a bit of a panic. As soon as he started shooting, the SS snipers spotted him and shot him.
If that counts as doing your job fairly well, I’d say Kwasi Kwarteng did fairly well at being chancellor.
Do you honestly believe that the security service should be able to guarantee that Donald Trump is not under any circumstances whatsoever assassinated?
And it wasn't simply "luck" that stopped a bullet killing him. Presumably if the shooter had been closer he would have stood a better chance. And if there hadn't been counter snipers, or they had taken longer to kill the shooter, then the assassination attempt might have been successful.
Trump is alive today because the security service stopped an attempted assassination attempt. If they hadn't he obviously wouldn't be alive now. You can argue that the security around him should be tighter but the idea that all assassination attempts against former presidents can be guaranteed to fail doesn't sound feasible to me.
Do you honestly believe that the security service should be able to guarantee that Donald Trump is not under any circumstances whatsoever assassinated?
No I do not and I did not say that! We are not talking about 'any circumstances' we are talking about these circumstances! The security detail failed to search one of only a handful of roofs in the area. The one in question was well within easy shooting range for a mediocre marksman and had a clear line of sight to the podium. That the shooter very narrowly failed is nothing more than luck.
You can argue that the security around him should be tighter but the idea that all assassination attempts against former presidents can be guaranteed to fail doesn’t sound feasible to me.
Once again, for clarity. I am not arguing that, I don't think anyone is. I am saying that in this particular instance they were incredibly negligent in not identifying one of the most obvious threats. I say this from a professional background of having being involved with preemptive counter terrorist searches of venues used by VIPs. Now my knowledge is admittedly very dated, but things haven't changed that much.
Ernie, to answer your first points:
The fact that a gunman managed to get into the venue and on a roof, 150m from Trump, is an absolute security failure.
Who is at fault depends on which department had responsibility for perimeter security and checking the roof's.
BUTR +1
Trump is alive today because the security service stopped an attempted assassination attempt.
They didn't stop the attempt, or even an attempted attempt
If they hadn’t he obviously wouldn’t be alive now. You can argue that the security around him should be tighter but the idea that all assassination attempts against former presidents can be guaranteed to fail doesn’t sound feasible to me.
It isn't feasible, but basic security wasn't in place on this occasion. You don't start protection at the core (Trump), you start at the perimeter. Builders of castles have understood this for centuries, with walls, drawbridges and finally the bit in the middle
I say this from a professional background of having being involved with preemptive counter terrorist searches of venues used by VIPs.
Well that's more experience than I have - I've never searched venues for terrorists!
I don't have any strong opinions on the issue. My observation is simply that an assassination attempt was made and it failed. Without security it would have obviously succeeded.
The only other observation that I would make is that presumably the United States security service are also very experienced at what they do, I struggle to believe multiple failures on their part, as seems to be the suggestion.
A video from history. President Reagan, after he'd recovered from an earlier assassination attempt
It's just won him the election, campaign photo of his dreams.
The whole point of this kind of security isn't just to take down a gunman after he gets a handful of shots off. At that point there's a good chance the person you're protecting is dead already. It's to visit the venue beforehand and spot the potential risks (eg a roof within 150m but outside the security cordon) and take steps to pre-emptively prevent that opportunity, for example by stationing someone on that roof or making sure no-one is trying to access it on the day.
I imagine trying to organise communications with local law enforcement is a nightmare, but you'd expect multiple reports of a bloke lying on that roof for minutes ahead of the attempt to filter through to those responsible for his safety on the stage so they could get him out of harm's way.
The only other observation that I would make is that presumably the United States security service are also very experienced at what they do, I struggle to believe multiple failures on their part, as seems to be the suggestion.
An "active shooter" got into the venue and shot at him.
Of course someone has ****ed up.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51ykzn0739o
Why on earth is the King writing to an unelected convicted foreign criminal?
And why are they announcing that the King has written to Trump but refusing to divulge what he said?
If it is not in the public's interest to know what the King said why is it in the public's interest to know that he said anything?
Ernie you have a point in a wider sense. It is of course impossible to prevent any and all attempts. In my own experience compromises sometimes have to be made based on time, resources, public disruption, last minute changes in schedule of the principal or their unwillingness to accept all security advice.
The US Secret Service are an experienced and professional organisation, I wouldn't suggest otherwise in a general sense. They have prevented other attempts and likely a great many more we will never know about and that they will never receive public credit for. But as professional as they generally are, on this occasion they dropped the ball. Not because of some statistically unlikely fluke they could not have reasonably foreseen and mitigated against, but a pretty basic and unforgivable mistake IMO.
Why on earth is the King writing to an unelected convicted foreign criminal?
It's a man he has met in an official capacity, who he may have to meet again after November. Diplomacy, same as the likes of Starmer, Lammy etc will have to attempt before he gets back in. Lammy might find it tricky, given that he called him a 'neo-nazi sociopath', but he's giving it a go.
https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1812279017073934404
Not to sound all Walt about this but the psychology of the police in general and the security details in particular always interest me.
Someone up there suggested that a 'local bobby' type policeman was alerted and was trying to climb on the roof, the gunman saw/heard him and took aim so the bobby dropped back down. The gunman then was rushed in his shots, and the rest is as they say.
If the copper had done his job should he have got on the roof and if necessary get shot anyway; that would have alerted the security services and maybe cost his life and saved the (ex) President's and potentially various others.
And then once the shot was taken, the security detail pulling him to the ground and lying on top of him as a human shield.
Like I say the psychology. I know <Roy Keane mode> 'yeh, but it's their job' but are they all Trump supporters to do that job. Did it go through their minds at all that he's a nasty man and maybe, just maybe, this wouldn't be a disaster overall (albeit career limiting - although being shot can have the same effect). And the climbing copper - sticks head over roof, has gun pointed at him. Does he back away instinctively - as an American copper you'd assume he's been confronted by an armed suspect before even if not actually pointed at him - or think 'Not today and definitely not for that PoS'
Someone up there suggested that a ‘local bobby’ type policeman was alerted and was trying to climb on the roof, the gunman saw/heard him and took aim so the bobby dropped back down. The gunman then was rushed in his shots, and the rest is as they say.
If the copper had done his job should he have got on the roof and if necessary get shot anyway; that would have alerted the security services and maybe cost his life and saved the (ex) President’s and potentially various others.
Not everyone has the fortitude to make a split second sacrifice like that. Quite a few police aren't prepared to die to protect the public, or Trump. See also, Uvalde.
Plus, in Pennsylvania he might well be a Dem voter 🙂
Triumphantly punching the air, whilst there are people injured and dying.
Classy.
So the shooter was a white Republican registered American with a legally held firearm. Looking at the responses from the MAGA crowd on SM the answer to this appears to be tighter border controls, more guns and a blame the Dems.
Seems fine.
Triumphantly punching the air, whilst there are people injured and dying.
Classy.
only one person matters to trump
& his supporters love that
@nickc Facts don’t matter though.
I’m not as pessimistic about this as some others - sure, it makes it more likely he’ll win but equally a lot could happen between now and polling day, and if the undecided pay more attention to what he’s saying…
What, even the ones out of ear shot?
I see what you did there.
Triumphantly punching the air, whilst there are people injured and dying.
Classy.
I'm no Trump fan by any stretch but... Having a bullet very narrowly miss turning your head inside out, might mean your adrenaline fuelled responses aren't entirely thoughtful and considered!
Of course in his case you could argue nothing he ever says is thoughtful and considered and you'd be right. But most of us don't know how we would react in the seconds after a near death experience and probably wouldn't expect to be projecting our best image.
As I said, I'm interested in the psychology and decision making, not in whether they made the right choice per se, more how do they make that choice at that moment. Must be nigh on impossible.
Also instinct vs training vs time to make a decision.
Compare to the guy who attacked the London attacker with a Narwhal tusk, what 'decision' did he make that day?
The narwhal tusk is instinctive, no way was he thinking 'if a knife attacker appears, I'll use that tusk to confront him'
The SS is trained - if you hear shooting get him on the ground and lay on top of him. Even then at that moment is there a '**** that for a game of soldiers' moment.
The policeman. Has been told there's a gunman on the roof (maybe someone on the roof but I assume you'd be thinking gunman, not someone hoping for a better view). As you're climbing up you must be thinking about what you'll see and what you'll do in response. At that point neither instinct nor practised really, just him in an impossible situation. And one where "A gunman? On the roof? You want me to climb up and look? **** off" isn't really a choice.
only one person matters to trump
& his supporters love that
He was well enough for a round of golf yesterday, and apparently 'in good spirits'. Which I'm sure cheers up the family of the bloke who was shot dead at his rally.
Biden would be over to visit the families and the injured in hospital at the first available opportunity.
I can't stand the man but I do have to admire the presence of mind to get that photo op. If someone had just shot me (and he was hit, albeit "only" in the ear) I would be cowering away reassessing my life choices and wondering where to get a clean pair of trousers. I would not be capable to leading all those people in a chant of support
He’s a smart political operator when it really counts.
Triumphantly punching the air, whilst there are people injured and dying.
Triumphantly pumping the air as he survived and did not know about the victims?
I would be cowering away reassessing my life choices and wondering where to get a clean pair of trousers.
Donald never has to deal with one of those issues, so he has ample capacity for thinking about the photo.
Interesting discussion re the protocols of armed protection
and wondering where to get a clean pair of trousers.
I think The Don wears adult nappies, so one thing he doesn't have to worry about is shitting his trousers.
