Wow is it

[*skriptis]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GSkiib8bIAIVcPp?format=jpg

[jdeluise]

Post by *skriptis
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GSkiib8bIAIVcPp?format=jpg

Fake

[PeteWasLucky]

They really had him in sight and were aiming at him for some time before the shooting. But I don't think it's an easy and/or acceptable to shoot/kill someone you aren't too sure about his motives until it's shown and confirmed. What if it's a young man that is just watching, and if they see a gun, then there is possibility it could be an air gun. So killing a guy that could have been innocent would have hurt the Trump campaign.

[jdeluise]

Post by PeteWasLucky

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GSkiib8bIAIVcPp?format=jpgFake

They really had him in sight and were aiming at him for some
time before the shooting.

Do you have any credible evidence of this? One thing is for sure,
*skriptis' meme is fake.

Post by PeteWasLucky
But I don't think it's an easy and/or acceptable to shoot/kill
someone
you aren't too sure about his motives until it's shown and
confirmed. What if it's a young man that is just watching, and
if they
see a gun, then there is possibility it could be an air gun. So
killing
a guy that could have been innocent would have hurt the Trump
campaign.

They would have had to see the AR-15 though. Apparently there was
a police counter-sniper team *in* the building the shooter was on
top of, so if he really was spotted I could see how it might
contribute to confusion that might result in a delay, but then
again he wasn't in uniform and looked awfully young. If they
were watching him, I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't
have dropped him faster after he started shooting. I doubt that
need to get approval to fire first in the case of clearly imminent
danger..

[Sawfish]

Post by PeteWasLucky

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GSkiib8bIAIVcPp?format=jpgFake

They really had him in sight and were aiming at him for some time
before the shooting.

Do you have any credible evidence of this?  One thing is for sure,
*skriptis' meme is fake.

Post by PeteWasLucky
But I don't think it's an easy and/or acceptable to shoot/kill someone
you aren't too sure about his motives until it's shown and
confirmed. What if it's a young man that is just watching, and if they
see a gun, then there is possibility it could be an air gun. So killing
a guy that could have been innocent would have hurt the Trump campaign.

They would have had to see the AR-15 though.  Apparently there was a
police counter-sniper team *in* the building the shooter was on top
of, so if he really was spotted I could see how it might contribute to
confusion that might result in a delay, but then again he wasn't in
uniform and looked awfully young.   If they were watching him, I find
it hard to believe that they wouldn't have dropped him faster after he
started shooting.  I doubt that need to get approval to fire first in
the case of clearly imminent danger..

It really gets down to not having some form of security on the roof.
Serious, serious underachievement.

We can't put a man on the moon, like we did multiple times 50 years ago;
we can't even get one back from the ISS reliably.

It's just how it is, now, in the US.

[*skriptis]

It really gets down to not having some form of security on the roof. Serious, serious underachievement.We can't put a man on the moon, like we did multiple times 50 years ago; we can't even get one back from the ISS reliably.It's just how it is, now, in the US.

Man on the moon or man on the roof? ;)



But yeah, horrible. Trump nearly died because of feminism.

Imagine you get shot by a loser due to poor security which is run by a diversity/inclusion pick?



And sure jdeluise might have a point, you can't (shouldn't) shoot at a first suspicion, but the entire surroundings was very easy to secure, just have agents on top of everywhere, use some drones (where are the drones?) so there really shouldn't have been any suspicions or potential assassins on the roof.

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

[The Iceberg]

Post by *skriptis

It really gets down to not having some form of security on the roof. Serious, serious underachievement.We can't put a man on the moon, like we did multiple times 50 years ago; we can't even get one back from the ISS reliably.It's just how it is, now, in the US.

Man on the moon or man on the roof? ;)
But yeah, horrible. Trump nearly died because of feminism.
Imagine you get shot by a loser due to poor security which is run by a diversity/inclusion pick?
And sure jdeluise might have a point, you can't (shouldn't) shoot at a first suspicion, but the entire surroundings was very easy to secure, just have agents on top of everywhere, use some drones (where are the drones?) so there really shouldn't have been any suspicions or potential assassins on the roof.

yes this woman who runs the SS should resign and would be exactly same
if it was a man, the reason he wasn't spotted in time is because he was
on the other side of the roof to the observers. jdeluise said there was
security in the building itself, BUT there shouldn't have been any
confusion as there should've been an outside security detail spotting
from that side(as skrip says). That is an unacceptably poor security set
up and that is what you get with these DEI/feminist hires who say the
most important thing isn't protecting candidates/presidents from being
shot BUT hiring incompetent women and non-white-males which is
insane(look at the pic yet of the woman officer facing away from Trump
when shots were fired).