this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
458 points (91.8% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3792 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Again, there is also no evidence he specifically wanted Trump dead and was not simply committing a blaze-of-glory act of terrorism for some misguided chance at fame. Having no evidence does not mean we default to one preferred interpretation.

No, but you at least go where what evidence you do have leads you. The kid fired off half a dozen shots, at least one of which came within an inch of killing him. If his plan were a mass shooting, bullets would have been sprayed everywhere. If his plan were to go for some blaze-of-glory shot at fame (or the most convoluted suicide-by-cop of all time) but didn't want to kill Trump, he could have just shot well above everybody's heads.

When you get that close with that many shots, it's more reasonable to assume that Trump was the target and he missed than it would be to assume that Trump wasn't the target because he missed.

Regarding the rooftop, from all indications he carefully scouted his method. The drone, the rangefinder, the ladder, etc. The building was local police’s responsibility, as well, they actually even had a cop inside that very building.

Right. Which is why I think we both can agree the whole situation is video-gamey. The kid came up with an elaborate plan that was 100% reliant on the United States Secret Service somehow forgetting to cover that specific rooftop, and him being able to get all that equipment over there without a single bit of interference. If that isn't the stealth mission of virtually every first person shooter in the past 30 years, I don't know what is.

Regardless though, it certainly was embarrassing for the SS anyway, hence the director resigning.

Oh absolutely. A lone 20 year old kid essentially playing out the plot of Call of Duty made the entire Secret Service look like a laughing stock live and in real time. There should have been a lot more than that director resigning.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Successfully shooting Trump would garner more fame than any of the other things you described. He unquestionably wanted to shoot Trump, I think. After Trump dropped down and got piled on by the SS, though, he seems to have begun shooting other people.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Trump stuck his head up once or twice after the Secret Service piled on. It's possible he was still trying to get Trump, but I will concede that it's also very likely he started firing randomly or at others to cause chaos and cover a potential escape.

I'll give them credit for piling on him though. They are very lucky that he didn't decide to just start shooting into the pile.