On 2024-07-16 7:43 p.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-07-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2024-07-16 11:17 a.m., chrisv wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> All of which is irrelevant: reportedly Crooks was outside of the USSS's
>>>> secure perimeter, so PA State Laws apply: its an Open Carry State, so
>>>> despite anything we want to say, Crooks was 100% legal until he pulled
>>>> the trigger, so from a RoE standpoint, any counter-sniper opening fire
>>>> on him beforehand would have been a clear violation of his 2A rights.
>>>>
>>>> Granted, the USSS perimeter really should have covered that building and
>>>> its roof, but that's a different question. As it stood, until Crooks
>>>> did anything more, he was at most been guilty of trespassing, which
>>>> doesn't carry the death sentence.
>>>
>>> That's some of the stupidest shit that I've seen in some time,
>>> -highhorse.
>>
>> To be fair, if a kid looking like Crooks entered my gun shop, I'd assume
>> that he was buying a gun to off himself. Of course, you don't need a
>> sniper rifle to shoot yourself in the mouth. I'm surprised nobody
>> expected that Jewish Urkel to do something criminal.
>
> What's odd is that Crooks appeared in at least one BlackRock commercial. And
> why do they keep showing pictures of him when he was in his early teens
> instead of one of the recent pictures which are easily available?

They have a picture of the guy they shot and he honestly doesn't look
like Crooks. The man in the picture looks a lot more like some
long-haired blonde who was arrested in 2017 for protesting Trump (hence
my commend about the arrest which doesn't seem to apply to Crooks). It's
quite possible that they attributed this crime to Crooks even though it
was committed by someone else because the latter was attached to Antifa,
and they're busy telling us that Antifa is an "idea."

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged savages

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>> They want a solution [to "illegal immigration"] that doesn't exist. :)
>
>Nah, the Republicans prefer the current Status Quo, because they can
>campaign on it as "the problem" of their opponent while their corporate
>donors benefit financially from it & pass along campaign contributions.
>
>Keep in mind that they were supporting HR-815 the bipartisan reform bill
>earlier this year .. until their GOP head honcho told them to oppose it.
>
>
><https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/future-of-dhs/this-years-bipartisan-immigration-bill-offers-a-border-blueprint-for-2025/>

The status quo is a big thing, but that of course proves our position,
that it must be dealt with. Biden has done the correct thing under
international law.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 05:31:10 -0700 (Seattle), Relf wrote:

> rBowman: When I have to sit at a crossing and watch a seemingly endless
> coal train
> heading west I contemplate where all the coal is going.
>
> 53 % of it goes to Japan, 40 % goes to South Korea.

And it goes via BC since the Washington Whackos don't want to dirty their
hands with coal.

On 7/16/24 1:33 PM, Joel wrote:
> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>
>>> Nah, the double standards here are from RonB...
>>
>> Nah, the double standards here are from the leftists.
>
>
> I have no wish for Trump to be shot at. It's a scary thing that did
> involve loss of life.
>
>
>> All I saw at your link was individual idiots.

Because I was merely looking for a photo.

>> Nothing from "RonB's
>> party" or from any elected official. Also nothing about any "defense"
>> of the idiots.
>
>
> RonB made it out like Biden could be accused of complicity.

And as you noted in your other post, there were "official" Republicans
who defended the use of the Hillary-in-the-Bullseye poster.

I just didn't bother to irrefutably document it. But that doesn't mean
that there haven't been any. Case in point:

"Trump Mocks Hammer Attack On Pelosi’s Husband In Incendiary Speech"

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2023/09/29/trump-mocks-hammer-attack-on-pelosis-husband-in-incendiary-speech/>

If chrisv wants to be credible, he'd promptly apologize for being wrong.

-hh

On 7/16/24 10:03 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 19:22:10 -0400, -hh wrote:
>
>> Time will tell; investigation is still extremely early.
>
> They'll figure it out eight after they find the person who left pipe bombs
> around DC.
>
>> FYI, this "Blackwater founder" got his wind drift calculation wrong.
>
> I doubt the kid was figuring out a solution.

Sure, but my point was that your supposedly authoritative source's claim
was waaaay off (and you didn't catch it before citing it):

"Prince said that Trump was still alive “solely due to a bad wind
estimate by an evil would-be assassin,” as a light five mph crosswind
was likely enough to push the small caliber bullet off course by a
couple of inches."

> Rule of thumb: a 5.56 will
> drift 1 inch at 100 yards in a 10 mph wind.
>

Reportedly, the wind was ~5mph and range ~150yds, so KISS rule of thumb
would be just (0.5)(1.5) = 0.75" ...

.... and this is the maximum which requires a 100% orthogonal crosswind:
if it was a head/tailwind it would be close to zero, and even if it was
on the quarters/flanks, it would be effectively halved... ~0.4"
displacement.

These are not even one inch, let alone "a couple of inches".

-hh

On 7/16/24 7:38 PM, RonB wrote:
> On 2024-07-16, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>
>>> All of which is irrelevant: reportedly Crooks was outside of the USSS's
>>> secure perimeter, so PA State Laws apply: its an Open Carry State, so
>>> despite anything we want to say, Crooks was 100% legal until he pulled
>>> the trigger, so from a RoE standpoint, any counter-sniper opening fire
>>> on him beforehand would have been a clear violation of his 2A rights.
>>>
>>> Granted, the USSS perimeter really should have covered that building and
>>> its roof, but that's a different question. As it stood, until Crooks
>>> did anything more, he was at most been guilty of trespassing, which
>>> doesn't carry the death sentence.
>>
>> That's some of the stupidest shit that I've seen in some time,
>> -highhorse.
>
> Actually, even if any of -high horse's bullshit made sense, it is still
> illegal to trespass on someone else's property as this attempted assassin
> did. So, you'll have to try harder -high horse, because your grasping at
> straws bullshit and hyper spin doctoring just isn't going to cut it.
>

RonB refuses to recognize that mere trespass isn't a capital offense.

-hh

On 7/16/24 9:10 PM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> If someone is pointing a weapon at you (or the person you're
>>> protecting, if you're the secret service), you have a right to shoot.
>>> You don't need to wait until they pull the trigger before you respond.
>>>
>>> Sheesh!
>>>
>>> To state that the secret service can't shoot someone who is pointing a
>>> gun at the person they are protecting is the height of idiocy. It's
>>> the height of idiocy to state that they can only do their jobs if the
>>> assassin is inside some alleged "secure perimeter".
>>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
> You just want to argue.

No, I simply knew that the civilian armchair experts would come out of
the woodwork on this event, as they always do. As such, I'm simply
putting my foot down on things that they're profoundly clueless about.

> No one with a brain believes that you need to
> wait for the guy pointing a gun at you to pull the trigger.

Wrong. The RoE's govern that, civilian boy.

> If it's an open carry state, could I walk up to Trump, or Biden, with
> a handgun pointed at them, and the secret service be unable to touch
> me, lest they "violate my 2A rights".

No, not necessarily, because there are Federal exceptions to State &
Local carry laws. That's why I'm telling you now that there's going to
be a political firestorm that focuses in on the finger-pointing of just
who (Fed/State/Local) was in charge of which zones, etc.

>
> Your brain is simply broken, in some regards, man. The shit that you
> argue...

Comes from working professionally in this industry for decades. Did you
never get a clue of where I've worked? Folks with a bit more of a clue
than you have successfully figured that out when I dropped my pic of the
Commander's Coin from the USMC Scout Sniper School.

> Also, the guy was identified as a suspicious person for many minutes
> before he got the shots off. They saw him with a range-finder. They
> saw him on the roof with the rifle, before he got the shots off.
>
> Why was Trump not pulled off the stage?
>

Why didn't they immediately shoot him if he was such a clear & present
danger?

Answer: RoE's.

-hh

On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 16:32:30 -0400, -hh wrote:

> Sure, but my point was that your supposedly authoritative source's claim
> was waaaay off (and you didn't catch it before citing it):
>
> "Prince said that Trump was still alive “solely due to a bad wind
> estimate by an evil would-be assassin,” as a light five mph crosswind
> was likely enough to push the small caliber bullet off course by a
> couple of inches."
>
>
>> Rule of thumb: a 5.56 will drift 1 inch at 100 yards in a 10 mph wind.
>>
>>
> Reportedly, the wind was ~5mph and range ~150yds, so KISS rule of thumb
> would be just (0.5)(1.5) = 0.75" ...

Kindly don't attribute quoting the authoritative source to me. Prince is
a better entrepreneur than a shooter.

-hh wrote:

>If chrisv wants to be credible, he'd promptly apologize for being wrong.

You responded to RonB's indisputably correct statement with "Nah",
making you wrong. When are you going to apologize?

--
"if Linux really is so much better than everything else, then why
isn't there a gaggle of successfully retired IT Linux geeks relaxing
on COLA?" - -highhorse, demonstrating his "logic skills"

-hh wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> No one with a brain believes that you need to
>> wait for the guy pointing a gun at you to pull the trigger.
>
>Wrong. The RoE's govern that, civilian boy.

No one with a brain believes that the secret service's RoE precludes
them shooting a guy who is 150 yards away and pointing a rifle at
their man.

>> Why was Trump not pulled off the stage?

>Why didn't they immediately shoot him if he was such a clear & present
>danger?
>
>Answer: RoE's.

Why did -highhorse ignore my question, which is my most powerful point
of all?

Answer: Because there is no reasonable answer, and he knows it.

> -highhorse wrote:
>>
>>Why didn't they immediately shoot him if he was such a clear & present
>>danger?

Incompetence and indecision. Poor training. Who knows?

>>Answer: RoE's.

It was a comedy of errors. There's zero reason to believe that it was
anything other than yet another mistake.

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> -highhorse wrote:
>>>
>>> Why didn't they immediately shoot him if he was such a clear & present
>>> danger?
>
> Incompetence and indecision. Poor training. Who knows?

No, you don’t get off that easy, for you’ve claimed it must have been
either incompetence or deliberate:

“There are only two possibilities, here. A staggering level of
incompetence, or intentionally facilitating an assassination.”

>>> Answer: RoE's.
>
> It was a comedy of errors. There's zero reason to believe that it was
> anything other than yet another mistake.

No, that’s you trying to come up more on the first question. This is the
answer to another claim you made, where you basically were advocating for
government forces to be able shoot to kill anyone for any supposed reason,
instead of only as per prescribed in their “textbook” Rules of Engagement
(RoE).

Just because you’re personally ignorant of this stuff (& related TTPs)
doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

-hh

chrisv wrote:

>> -highhorse wrote:
>>>
>>>Why didn't they immediately shoot him if he was such a clear & present
>>>danger?
>
>Incompetence and indecision. Poor training. Who knows?
>
>>>Answer: RoE's.
>
>It was a comedy of errors. There's zero reason to believe that it was
>anything other than yet another mistake.

Or... all part of the plan.

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> If it's an open carry state, could I walk up to Trump, or Biden, with
>> a handgun pointed at them, and the secret service be unable to touch
>> me, lest they "violate my 2A rights"?
>
> I saw in another post where -highhorse agrees that they could "detain"
> me and investigate, but not shoot me.
>
> But there's not always time or opportunity to detain. Like in this
> case. Shooting becomes the only option.

Police making preparatory mistakes where the only option they leave
themselves is to kill someone for their own mistake is 100% perfectly fine
& legal then?

Think I’ll ask your local town to set up a speed trap on your street:
Hope you got a cute widow! /s

>> Also, the guy was identified as a suspicious person for many minutes
>> before he got the shots off. They saw him with a range-finder. They
>> saw him on the roof with the rifle, before he got the shots off.
>>
>> Why was Trump not pulled off the stage?

Suspiciously fast clearing to allow him to be exposed to fire again…

…and with no MD report being released, could have been a Hollywood blood
squib.

Of course, no evidence of such a conspiracy theory, but let’s troll with it
anyway… /s

-hh

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> RonB wrote:
>
>> -high horse is spinning like a top. He knows he's full of crap.
>
> The incompetent diversity hire who runs the secret service has now
> come out with the reason why there was no officers on the roof.
>
> It was a "safety" issue, because of the "sloped" roof, you see.
>
> *gobsmack*
>
> Have you seen pictures of that roof? It's a very gentle slope. You
> wouldn't slide off of it.

How to say:

“I’ve never taken OSHA Safety Training”. /s

> Are we expected to believe that our supposedly elite security forces
> cannot handle being on a slightly sloped roof??? That they will just
> cede that high ground? It's "too dangerous"?
>
> FFS, a *child* would have NO PROBLEM on that roof!

Try reading current construction regulations for working on roofs.
Specifically, the sections on fall protection and when a harness is
required.

Stupid computer geeks with no IRL knowledge needs to think before jerking
knee.

-hh

Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>>> They want a solution [to "illegal immigration"] that doesn't exist. :)
>>
>> Nah, the Republicans prefer the current Status Quo, because they can
>> campaign on it as "the problem" of their opponent while their corporate
>> donors benefit financially from it & pass along campaign contributions.
>>
>> Keep in mind that they were supporting HR-815 the bipartisan reform bill
>> earlier this year .. until their GOP head honcho told them to oppose it.
>>
>>
>> <https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/future-of-dhs/this-years-bipartisan-immigration-bill-offers-a-border-blueprint-for-2025/>
>
>
> The status quo is a big thing, but that of course proves our position,
> that it must be dealt with. Biden has done the correct thing under
> international law.
>

Ironic how the Republicans are always so loud on “Rule of Law!” … but are
in contempt of it here.

-hh

-hh wrote:

>>>> Why didn't they immediately shoot him if he was such a clear & present
>>>> danger?
>>
>> Incompetence and indecision. Poor training. Who knows?
>
>No, you don’t get off that easy, for you’ve claimed it must have been
>either incompetence or deliberate:

Nope.

>“There are only two possibilities, here. A staggering level of
>incompetence, or intentionally facilitating an assassination.”

That was for the entire operation, not that specific question.

-hh wrote:

>Try reading current construction regulations for working on roofs.
>Specifically, the sections on fall protection and when a harness is
>required.

My God, you are a fscking moron. That tiny slope requires no harness.

Sheesh!

-hh wrote:

>Police making preparatory mistakes where the only option they leave
>themselves is to kill someone for their own mistake is 100% perfectly fine
>& legal then?
>
>Think I’ll ask your local town to set up a speed trap on your street:
>Hope you got a cute widow! /s

Not comparable to a secret service detail, jackass.

-hh wrote:

>No, that’s you trying to come up more on the first question. This is the
>answer to another claim you made, where you basically were advocating for
>government forces to be able shoot to kill anyone for any supposed reason,

It wasn't "any supposed reason", jackass. There's only one reason for
someone to be on a roof pointing a rifle in your direction.

>instead of only as per prescribed in their “textbook” Rules of Engagement
>(RoE).
>
>Just because you’re personally ignorant of this stuff (& related TTPs)
>doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Just because you've got nothing but hot air or RoE doesn't mean that
anyone with a brain is fooled.

On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 21:30:20 -0400, -hh wrote:

> Try reading current construction regulations for working on roofs.
> Specifically, the sections on fall protection and when a harness is
> required.

Wanna borrow my shovel for that hole you're digging?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8582496,-79.9701354,3a,75y,241.42h,
103.86t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfA5goonaQhB7T3QLqlMuaA!2e0!6shttps:
%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-
pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DfA5goonaQhB7T3QLqlMuaA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D241.41683531603843%26pitch%3D-13.856365210885215%26thumbfov%3D90!
7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu

Man, that is one fucking steep roof.

On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 20:40:23 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <8jsg9jd1iqi6cmovd4bcmr064ohmutcpn8@4ax.com>:

> -hh wrote:
>
>>>>> Why didn't they immediately shoot him if he was such a clear &
>>>>> present danger?
>>>
>>> Incompetence and indecision. Poor training. Who knows?
>>
>>No, you don’t get off that easy, for you’ve claimed it must have been
>>either incompetence or deliberate:
>
> Nope.
>
>>“There are only two possibilities, here. A staggering level of
>>incompetence, or intentionally facilitating an assassination.”
>
> That was for the entire operation, not that specific question.

[ note followup-to: a.f.r-l ]

https://x.com/LtTimMcMillan/status/1812383798740324380

"Having personally worked several Presidential and Vice Presidential
security details, here’s some of my thoughts based on the available info
of the assassination attempt on Trump.

1. The Secret Service employ a multi-tiered defense in depth approach to
protective missions. An inner tier offer close protection support, these
being the agents you see rushing in and surrounding Trump after the
initial shots go off.

A second middle tier is tasked with identifying and defending against
mid-range threats, i.g. the crowd, etc. This tier is largely comprised of
local and state law enforcement temporarily attached to the security
detail. This is the area that I worked on prior details.

Finally, you have an extend tier, which covers long distance threats. This
can include counter sniper details and cyber/SIGINT support and CBRN
defense.

2. People have wondered how could the counter snipers in the videos not
have seen the would be assassin prior to him getting off a shot.
This is because the area of responsibility for those counter snipers on
the roof behind Trump was very likely in the extend tier.

Essentially they were scanning for threats a great distances well beyond
the roughly 150 meters the threat appeared.

This is evidenced by the fact that the elevated counter sniper has to
dramatically drop his line of sight to respond to the shooter.

[video at the link above]

Secret Service advanced teams would have absolutely pre-scouted the
location and identified the building the shooter used as a vulnerable spot
in the defense.

Which begs the question, how was this guy still able to climb on the roof
and get off a shot?

Based on limited details at this point, IMO, the security breakdown
occurred in the middle tier, which would likely include law enforcement
who were supposed to be assigned to the area near the outbuildings.

How that significant of a breakdown could occur is up for speculation.
However, like I said this tier is largely dependent on local law
enforcement and not the Secret Service. So speculatively, the local LEOs
who were supposed to be in the area and make sure no one with a gun
climbed up on the roof, f*cked up.

3. People have said that witnesses saw the guy with the gun on the roof,
told police, but that they failed to respond and prevent the assassination
attempt.

So how does that happen?

Well, there’s typically limited lines communication between the Secret
Service and the local LEOs working the middle tier.
You usually have one or two local LEO liaisons who have direct
communication with the Secret Service, which means communications on the
ground between the local LEOs being told about the shooter are being
routed through dispatch, to local liaisons, then to Secret Service.

Compounding the difficulty to rapidly respond is the fact that there’s
always some confusion and inefficiency when multiple different LEO
agencies come together to work a detail. Most of these agencies aren’t
used to working with each other and aren’t given much information beyond a
few pre-event briefings.

I actually saw what can go wrong in these scenarios first-hand when
President Bush’s Secret Service detail almost engaged a local police
SWAT/counter sniper team during the 2004 G8 summit. No one had properly
communicated the local SWAT team’s position so all the Secret Service saw
was heavily armed individuals with a line of sight on the President.

The whole thing was seconds away from being a tragic incident.

In this same vein, there was likely some delay and confusion with the
initial reports of a person with a gun on the roof as local cops and
Secret Service agents would all be trying to confirm the shooter didn’t
belong to one of the security support teams.

So in summary, when looking for blame in this massive security failure, if
I was a betting man, I’d say the answer rests with whatever detail (likely
local LEOs) were assigned to the area near the outbuildings.

I’ll also add that I worked 5 Presidential details as a local LEO
attachment. Even though I was in close proximity for each detail, in only
2 of them did I actually ever see the President or Vice President. That
was Bush, while he was in the limo driving away. And Chaney but that was
because I was on an inner position, feet away from him.
You’re explicitly trained that your eyes are always on the crowd,
surroundings and potential threats. Never on the President themselves. For
obvious reasons…

Now my experience is entirely limited to official presidential visits,
which are planned at least months and in some cases a year in advance.
It’s likely that some of the breakdowns or issues I mentioned can be
exponentially increased when it comes to campaign trips as these stops can
come up or change on very short notice."

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.9.9 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"I'm a nobody, nobody is perfect, therefore I'm perfect."

chrisv wrote:

>Just because you've got nothing but hot air or RoE doesn't mean that
>anyone with a brain is fooled.

s/or RoE/about RoE/

chrisv wrote:

>-hh wrote:
>
>>>>> Why didn't they immediately shoot him if he was such a clear & present
>>>>> danger?
>>>
>>> Incompetence and indecision. Poor training. Who knows?
>>
>>No, you don’t get off that easy, for you’ve claimed it must have been
>>either incompetence or deliberate:
>
>Nope.
>
>>“There are only two possibilities, here. A staggering level of
>>incompetence, or intentionally facilitating an assassination.”
>
>That was for the entire operation, not that specific question.

Before -highhorse posted his above "gotcha", I'd already realized that
I'd forgotten something, and amended my post with "Or, all part of the
plan."

Incompetence and indecision. Poor training. Or all part of the plan.

That's simply "either incompetence or deliberate", rephrased. But the
-highhorse moron thought that he had a "gotcha".

This, folks, is the typical -highhorse garbage that he thinks that he
"wins" with. Illogical, stupid, and dishonest.

He's often *utterly* absurd, like his claim that a safety harness
would be required on that roof. But I'm the "ignorant" one for not
knowing that.

What a dipshit!

rbowman wrote:

> -hh wrote:
>>
>> Try reading current construction regulations for working on roofs.
>> Specifically, the sections on fall protection and when a harness is
>> required.
>
>Wanna borrow my shovel for that hole you're digging?
>
>https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8582496,-79.9701354,3a,75y,241.42h,103.86t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfA5goonaQhB7T3QLqlMuaA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DfA5goonaQhB7T3QLqlMuaA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D241.41683531603843%26pitch%3D-13.856365210885215%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu

(link fixed)

>Man, that is one fucking steep roof.

Too dangerous, man! Even Army Rangers would be afraid of walking
around up there!

It's just *stunning*, the kind of idiocy that the -highhorse jackass
will argue and defend, isn't it?