On 7/15/24 10:47 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2024-07-14 8:08 p.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2024-07-14, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 07:49:56 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>
>>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... and by attempting to assassinate Trump, they've never made it
>>>>> clearer. Apparently, the attempted assassination of Slovakian and
>>>>> Spanish politicians wasn't enough for the "moral" left.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are all filth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had something to do with it?  I'm appalled by it.  I would like to
>>>> know how they let him climb up to where he was penetrating the
>>>> perimeter.  But he obviously knew what he was doing, armed as he was,
>>>> and there was loss of life.
>>>
>>> I would say the Secret Service dropped the ball very badly. A roof
>>> with a
>>> clear 150 yard shot and there wasn't an overwatch on it?
>>
>> My brother sent me a link supposedly from the police sniper (not Secret
>> Service) who killed Crooks, who supposedly had him in his sight three
>> minutes before Crooks fired at Trump, but was told to "stand down," by
>> the
>> Secret Service. I didn't post the link because I have trouble believing
>> that.
>>
>> But what is clear is that the attempted assassin was only 140 yards
>> away and
>> was clearly seen climbing to the roof, toting the gun, and up to 40
>> members
>> of the crowd kept pointing at him (for about three minutes before the
>> shooting) and yelling, "he has a gun." So, at the very least, it was
>> incompetency by the Secret Service. There is no way that building should
>> have been unsecured.
>
> According to David Knight, every agent assigned to the rally that day
> was temporary whereas Trump usually benefits from permanent staff. They
> wanted him to die. The fact that he didn't is very inconvenient to them
> now.
>

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.

-hh

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

><https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-concerned-about-risk-violence-election-day-nears-n672821>

Branden Belloni, a Trump supporter at the Florida rally, told NBC
News’ Hallie Jackson that he didn’t think his Hillary bulls-eye poster
was threatening, or sent the wrong message to his 8-year-old son, who
was standing next to him. He had pulled the third-grader out of school
to attend the event.

“I'm not a violent person,” he said, “I don't teach my son to be
violent. You know … it's a humor thing.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Humor" until it's a gun attack, sure.

--
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.

-hh wrote:

>Nah, the double standards here are from RonB...

Nah, the double standards here are from the leftists.

All I saw at your link was individual idiots. Nothing from "RonB's
party" or from any elected official. Also nothing about any "defense"
of the idiots.

--
'Well, the "advocates" claim that if something is desired then OSS
will be made to fit the need.' - some thing, lying shamelessly

-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.

RonB wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Why do you care? These people are living in a Bizzarro World.
>>>
>>> Once again you take the side opposite of reality. It's becoming
>>> routine for you, like a reflex.
>>
>>:-D Says you.
>>
>> I read a lot of different sources and actually think through what I'm
>> reading. Detecting fake "data", missing data, illogical "conclusions",
>> over-generalization, daemonization, ranting versus discourse, cult worship,
>> cargo-cult "science".
>
> Cargo-cult "science?" Like men can have babies?
>
>> The level of craziness these days is astounding.
>
> Agreed. Most of the craziness coming from the Woke Left.

Chris A has "read a lot of sources" and come to the conclusion that
doctors have the ability make a man into a women. "Quite easily" in
fact.

You can't get much more obviously wrong than that!

On 7/16/24 11:17 AM, 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.
>

Your personal opinion doesn't mean that its not true:

[quote]
18 Pa.C.S. § 6108: Carrying firearms on public streets or public
property in Philadelphia

No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the
public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class
unless:
(1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or
(2) such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this
title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

To summarize, open carry is legal in Pennsylvania without a License To
Carry Firearms except in "cities of the first class" (Philadelphia) and
vehicles where a License To Carry Firearms is required to do so.
[/quote]

<https://www.pafoa.org/law/carrying-firearms/open-carry/>

Plus it also goes on to say:

"With that said, we would like to point out that there is much debate
among firearm owners about whether openly carrying firearms is really a
good idea..."

-hh

On 7/15/24 5:12 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2024-07-15 4:56 p.m., Joel wrote:
>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>
>>>> Hillary would've
>>>> been a good president [as opposed to Trump in 2016], I believe.
>>>
>>> Your "girlfriend" must have very violently raped your ear for you to
>>> think that Hillary would have made a decent president.
>>
>>
>> Tell me what was so great about Trump.
>
> An economy where you didn't have to choose between paying your rent or
> eating.
>

Just what administration policy accomplished that?

Be specific.

FYI, the 2017 TCJA wasn't one, because most all of the cuts went to the
top 5% (who don't need to make the rent-vs-eat decision), plus it also
caused +$2T in additional deficit, which we're all now paying interest
on, to the tune of roughly an additional $400/year.

-hh

-hh wrote:

> (idiocy snipped)

All irrelevant. The security perimeter needed to include the
building, if it was to do any good at all.

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

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. 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.

--
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.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>I read a lot of different sources and actually think through what I'm
>reading. Detecting fake "data", missing data, illogical "conclusions",
>over-generalization, daemonization, ranting versus discourse,

Along these lines, why do you suppose that whites in America are
demonized because of slavery, when every race has enslaved others?
Some still do. Why is only the short period of slavery in America
taught and decried in our schools?

--
"The main issue I have with the GPL is forcing you to give your work
away if you use theirs." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 10:17:45 -0500, 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.

Yes he has surpassed himself. I will have to agree the Secret Service is
either complicit or incompetent. This wasn't exactly a sniper concealed in
a prepared nest 800 yards away.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/founder-of-the-private-military-company-
blackwater-breaks-down-trump-assassination-attempt

If I were Trump I'd bring my own security.

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2015/05/28/top-10-secret-service-scandals/

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg27612/html/
CHRG-115hhrg27612.htm

tl;dr. summary after skimming: low recruitment, low retention, low pay,
low morale and inadequate training.

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 10:20:40 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> Chris A has "read a lot of sources" and come to the conclusion that
> doctors have the ability make a man into a women. "Quite easily" in
> fact.

It's pretty easy to make a man into a eunuch...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato

The deal with the ice water bath and getting your nuts twisted off doesn't
sound like much fun.

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

>> Chris A has "read a lot of sources" and come to the conclusion that
>> doctors have the ability make a man into a women. "Quite easily" in
>> fact.
>
>It's pretty easy to make a man into a eunuch...
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato
>
>The deal with the ice water bath and getting your nuts twisted off doesn't
>sound like much fun.

A trans woman having male genitalia is actually a really smooth thing,
if I were gay I'd have a dude for a partner, right? Well, with a
trans woman, it's a woman, but you are operating with the same parts
as a gay partner would have, a field day of hotness wherein I could
even take cock in my ass.

--
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 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.

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

On 2024-07-16 3:07 p.m., Joel wrote:
> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>>> Chris A has "read a lot of sources" and come to the conclusion that
>>> doctors have the ability make a man into a women. "Quite easily" in
>>> fact.
>>
>> It's pretty easy to make a man into a eunuch...
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato
>>
>> The deal with the ice water bath and getting your nuts twisted off doesn't
>> sound like much fun.
>
>
> A trans woman having male genitalia is actually a really smooth thing,
> if I were gay I'd have a dude for a partner, right? Well, with a
> trans woman, it's a woman, but you are operating with the same parts
> as a gay partner would have, a field day of hotness wherein I could
> even take cock in my ass.

It looks like you and Ahlstrom have lots in common.

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

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

>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.

This is exactly what's wrong with you, Andrzej, you caricature people,
you can't humanize people. Really sharp people have more of a sense
of who others are.

--
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 7/15/24 8:53 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2024-07-15 7:07 p.m., Joel wrote:
>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-15 4:56 p.m., Joel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me what was so great about Trump.
>>>
>>> Fewer illegal aliens crossing the border (with Biden's blessing).
>>
>>
>> Yeah maybe we're just shoving the crisis where it belongs, in your
>> backyard, because you wanted the America we have.  Either accept
>> responsibility for the white man's forays, or just admit you plug your
>> ears and block out reality.
>
> It's the White man's fault that filthy non-whites from the Third World
> come here!
>

Nope, its simply following US Rule of Law, as per the 1980 Refugee Act:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act>

Where it went sideways is that Republicans have chosen to systematically
underfund the immigration courts, so the legal review of refugee claims
has become increasingly backlogged: average wait time is now 3.5+ years.

But during that wait, they're cheap labor to be exploited.

For Enterprise knows that since ~90% of them will have their refugee
claim get rejected, hiring them is cheaper in two ways: direct (labor
rate) and indirect (liability risks): they know that they won't be able
to stay in the US to litigate wrongful deaths, injuries, poisoning by
pesticides, etc, which means corps can cut corners on working conditions
and never be held financially responsible.

In other words, YA instance of exploitation for increasing corporate
profits than if they had to hire Americans.

-hh

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>On 7/15/24 8:53 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> On 2024-07-15 7:07 p.m., Joel wrote:
>>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-07-15 4:56 p.m., Joel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell me what was so great about Trump.
>>>>
>>>> Fewer illegal aliens crossing the border (with Biden's blessing).
>>>
>>> Yeah maybe we're just shoving the crisis where it belongs, in your
>>> backyard, because you wanted the America we have.  Either accept
>>> responsibility for the white man's forays, or just admit you plug your
>>> ears and block out reality.
>>
>> It's the White man's fault that filthy non-whites from the Third World
>> come here!
>
>Nope, its simply following US Rule of Law, as per the 1980 Refugee Act:
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act>
>
>Where it went sideways is that Republicans have chosen to systematically
>underfund the immigration courts, so the legal review of refugee claims
>has become increasingly backlogged: average wait time is now 3.5+ years.
>
>But during that wait, they're cheap labor to be exploited.
>
>For Enterprise knows that since ~90% of them will have their refugee
>claim get rejected, hiring them is cheaper in two ways: direct (labor
>rate) and indirect (liability risks): they know that they won't be able
>to stay in the US to litigate wrongful deaths, injuries, poisoning by
>pesticides, etc, which means corps can cut corners on working conditions
>and never be held financially responsible.
>
>In other words, YA instance of exploitation for increasing corporate
>profits than if they had to hire Americans.

They want a solution that doesn't exist. :)

--
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.

-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.

Wrong.

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".

On 7/16/24 4:42 PM, Joel wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>> On 7/15/24 8:53 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-15 7:07 p.m., Joel wrote:
>>>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-15 4:56 p.m., Joel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell me what was so great about Trump.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fewer illegal aliens crossing the border (with Biden's blessing).
>>>>
>>>> Yeah maybe we're just shoving the crisis where it belongs, in your
>>>> backyard, because you wanted the America we have.  Either accept
>>>> responsibility for the white man's forays, or just admit you plug your
>>>> ears and block out reality.
>>>
>>> It's the White man's fault that filthy non-whites from the Third World
>>> come here!
>>
>> Nope, its simply following US Rule of Law, as per the 1980 Refugee Act:
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act>
>>
>> Where it went sideways is that Republicans have chosen to systematically
>> underfund the immigration courts, so the legal review of refugee claims
>> has become increasingly backlogged: average wait time is now 3.5+ years.
>>
>> But during that wait, they're cheap labor to be exploited.
>>
>> For Enterprise knows that since ~90% of them will have their refugee
>> claim get rejected, hiring them is cheaper in two ways: direct (labor
>> rate) and indirect (liability risks): they know that they won't be able
>> to stay in the US to litigate wrongful deaths, injuries, poisoning by
>> pesticides, etc, which means corps can cut corners on working conditions
>> and never be held financially responsible.
>>
>> In other words, YA instance of exploitation for increasing corporate
>> profits than if they had to hire Americans.
>
>
> They want a solution 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/>

-hh

On 7/16/2024 10:40 AM, -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.

'until he pulled the trigger'? No.

He gave up his 2A and 4A rights well before that. The minute he
committed the extremely suspicious act of carrying a gun up a ladder to
the roof of a building near a political rally, he was subject to lawful
detainment and investigation.

I wonder if he just got lucky that no one was posted near that building,
or if he knew about how the Secret Service covered rallies, or if he
staked out several buildings and saw that one wasn't guarded.

Whatever the case, it was a huge failure on the part of local law
enforcement and/or the Secret Service.

On 7/16/24 1:28 PM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> (idiocy snipped)
>
> All irrelevant. The security perimeter needed to include the
> building, if it was to do any good at all.

Not irrelevant at all, because no matter what the security perimeter is,
it is going to have a terminus at which point, non-USSS personnel are
responsible for beyond that point.

Reportedly (and right or wrong), this building was "beyond that point"
of being the USSS's perimeter responsibility.

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

I'm not saying that errors weren't made. Insofar as your duality claim,
this one has to be incompetence, because from both tactical & strategic
perspectives, an intentional hit simply would not have failed.

FYI, another thing to consider is that no matter how good or bad the
USSS & LEO resources are, anyone who can afford to pay for private
security is free to do so, and anyone who's a billionaire is in the
category of "can afford to pay".

-hh

On 7/16/24 2:51 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 10:17:45 -0500, 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.
>
> Yes he has surpassed himself. I will have to agree the Secret Service is
> either complicit or incompetent. This wasn't exactly a sniper concealed in
> a prepared nest 800 yards away.

Time will tell; investigation is still extremely early.

> https://www.dailywire.com/news/founder-of-the-private-military-company-
> blackwater-breaks-down-trump-assassination-attempt

FYI, this "Blackwater founder" got his wind drift calculation wrong.

> If I were Trump I'd bring my own security.

He's a billionaire (allegedly), so he can very easily afford to do so.

-hh

On 2024-07-16, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> RonB wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you care? These people are living in a Bizzarro World.
>>>>
>>>> Once again you take the side opposite of reality. It's becoming
>>>> routine for you, like a reflex.
>>>
>>>:-D Says you.
>>>
>>> I read a lot of different sources and actually think through what I'm
>>> reading. Detecting fake "data", missing data, illogical "conclusions",
>>> over-generalization, daemonization, ranting versus discourse, cult worship,
>>> cargo-cult "science".
>>
>> Cargo-cult "science?" Like men can have babies?
>>
>>> The level of craziness these days is astounding.
>>
>> Agreed. Most of the craziness coming from the Woke Left.
>
> Chris A has "read a lot of sources" and come to the conclusion that
> doctors have the ability make a man into a women. "Quite easily" in
> fact.
>
> You can't get much more obviously wrong than that!

Just more of his "cargo-cult science" I guess.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 7/16/24 6:35 PM, 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.
>
> Wrong.
>
> 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.

That's merely your opinion on what is allowed for civilians, and
probably in the context of 'Castle Doctrine'. Its not the same.

> You don't need to wait until they pull the trigger before you respond.

Nope: the specific Rules of Engagement (RoE's) are what matter here.

Plus if the counter-sniper team members happened to be active duty
military personnel, they have DoD regulations which also apply to them,
plus potentially the LOAC to consider too, in addition to civil law.

> 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".

First, I was merely pointing out the diagnostic dilemma that LEO's were
being confronted with because of the local "pro-gun" laws of open carry.

Second, the USSS has already stated that the roof wasn't within their
perimeter, so your personal speculative & uninformed opinion about what
preemptive actions their RoEs allow *within* their zone does not apply.

-hh