 |
|
RE: DEI gal Secret Service hires didn't perform well yesterday
Posted on: July 15, 2024 at 14:38:59 CT
BH O'bonga MU
Posts:
26528
Member For:
5.65 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
4
"A few observations:
First, the closeup of the sniper confirms what I suspected yesterday--the sniper was local police, not SS. You can see that clearly on his back.
Second, the video shows the snipers scanning roofs in the area--they're not looking down. They have excellent optics/binocs.
Third, the fact that for at least 42 seconds they're actually sighting through their scopes, shouldering their rifles, hands in position to take a shot, tells me that they have a target which they acquired using their optics--now they've identified a threat.
Fourth, the fact that they don't shoot until the perp starts firing confirms the Crabtree contention that SS doesn't fire first--although that may have something to do with the distance, etc. I have a problem with this because snipers DO take out hostage holders. Someone unlawfully pointing a gun at someone else would seem to my mind to be an imminent threat. There are complications here--inability to order him to put it down, etc. I don't fault the police officers here. They were following orders, because ...
Fifth, What's going on? I suspected this yesterday. They would have been in contact with command--which I presume is SS—asking for permission to shoot. That’s an indication that there are situations in which preventive shots can be taken.
Sixth, It's credible that they were told not to shoot. Here's what may be the bigger problem ...
Seventh, even if they don't want to shoot first, the POTUS is in the line of a deadly threat AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THAT POSITION ASAP. Not shooting first doesn't mean take no protective action. So what happened there??? All indications are that the officers reported that threat as they should have. Someone else left Trump exposed.
Eighth, going back to the police officers supplementing SS personnel, who were mostly (or maybe all) not part of Trump's regular detail, this goes to the contention that there were not enough SS to adequately cover the venue. This may be a more common situation than we realize, but Trump is a very high profile protectee. So, the big question is: Is TGP correct that his coverage was reduced due to being reassigned to Doc Jill's event?"
Source - Anonymous retired FBI Agent
First, the closeup of the sniper confirms what I suspected yesterday--the sniper was local police, not SS. You can see that clearly on his back.
Second, the video shows the snipers scanning roofs in the area--they're not looking down. They have excellent optics/binocs.
Third, the fact that for at least 42 seconds they're actually sighting through their scopes, shouldering their rifles, hands in position to take a shot, tells me that they have a target which they acquired using their optics--now they've identified a threat.
Fourth, the fact that they don't shoot until the perp starts firing confirms the Crabtree contention that SS doesn't fire first--although that may have something to do with the distance, etc. I have a problem with this because snipers DO take out hostage holders. Someone unlawfully pointing a gun at someone else would seem to my mind to be an imminent threat. There are complications here--inability to order him to put it down, etc. I don't fault the police officers here. They were following orders, because ...
Fifth, What's going on? I suspected this yesterday. They would have been in contact with command--which I presume is SS—asking for permission to shoot. That’s an indication that there are situations in which preventive shots can be taken.
Sixth, It's credible that they were told not to shoot. Here's what may be the bigger problem ...
Seventh, even if they don't want to shoot first, the POTUS is in the line of a deadly threat AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THAT POSITION ASAP. Not shooting first doesn't mean take no protective action. So what happened there??? All indications are that the officers reported that threat as they should have. Someone else left Trump exposed.
Eighth, going back to the police officers supplementing SS personnel, who were mostly (or maybe all) not part of Trump's regular detail, this goes to the contention that there were not enough SS to adequately cover the venue. This may be a more common situation than we realize, but Trump is a very high profile protectee. So, the big question is: Is TGP correct that his coverage was reduced due to being reassigned to Doc Jill's event?"
Source - Anonymous retired FBI Agent
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
RE: DEI gal Secret Service hires didn't perform well yesterday - BH O'bonga MU - 7/15 14:38:59
-