475

submitted 4 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Ack@lemmy.ca 59 points 4 months ago

I don’t get it, I assume it has something to do with the Trump assassination attempt. Did the secret service not look up a slope or something?

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 126 points 4 months ago* (last edited 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@midwest.social 33 points 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 27 points 4 months ago* (last edited 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@midwest.social 19 points 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.

[-] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 4 months ago

That is an unfortunate abbreviation for Secret Service...

[-] transientpunk@sh.itjust.works 15 points 4 months ago

Just wait, in a few months, they are going to become far more similar

[-] elvith@feddit.org 10 points 4 months ago

...foreshadowing?

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 9 points 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.

[-] lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 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.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 8 points 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.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Please for the love of whatever, USSS.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 points 4 months ago

ACASS

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 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 23 points 4 months ago

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

[-] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 4 points 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 17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 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?

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago

Falling off a roof is a very real danger, to be fair to the US-SS.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 4 points 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.