[Incompetence is obvious but I’d hate to see it blamed for what is surely deliberate malice. There must be some attempt at accountability.]
Bad hiring practices aren’t just political talking points - they literally lead to situations like this, where people who are incapable of doing their jobs are put in as top level management. The woman in charge might be fine as a personal bodyguard, but doesn’t belong anywhere near a management position.
This isn’t about training. It’s about fundamental cognitive ability. She ain’t got it, and no amount of training will fix that.
You don’t have to be a genius to mount an assassination attempt. Literal dictators have been killed by assassins over the centuries, despite serious security precautions, and in much more controlled security settings. The key elements necessary to pull it off are above average intelligence and a willingness to die, if necessary.
If you wanted to put Joe Biden in the ground, you could probably get really close. But it would be a one-way mission.
Rich Hanania has an essay on how in recent decades, political assassinations seem to have petered out. We can only hope that this attempt isn’t the start of a new and disturbing trend.
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/why-are-there-so-few-assassinations
A commenter who spent time in war zones makes a few points:
Honestly? I probably would have done the same in that situation. I will explain.
Think about it. You’re not in Syria. You’re on sniper duty at a political rally in the US. You usually don’t have threats. Whatever “threats” you do have are usually an unruly Bernie Bro that venue security can just throw out and Secret Service doesn’t even need to get involved
Then you see something. Looks like a gun. Better get this right! We all remember what happened to Derek Chauvin. (Sticks head up, looks to confirm) Imagine shooting an unarmed civilian because you *thought* you saw a gun. Seriously, imagine the news stories the next day.
You’ve heard of fight or flight, but there is a third option: freeze. You’re not in Syria or Iraq. It’s not that kind of rules of engagement. What do you do? Better get this right
Then the shots confirm what you saw, and you return fire. All this thought process happens in about 3 seconds if you watch the clip. It’s easy to pick about that clip now but at the time...nobody was even watching. They were listening to the Trump speech. That was it.
Again, you’re probably not going to like my take. I don’t really like it either. It’s the kind of thing that training is supposed to fix. But I also understand.
You get this one wrong, you’re doing a life sentence.
Before someone says “but qualified immunity”, look, he gets this shot wrong, the first news headline is “TRUMP BODYGUARDS MURDERING INNOCENT MINORITY WOMEN AND CHILDREN” and connect the dots on how the DOJ will respond.]
The trouble with that guy’s assessment is that the SS knew from multiple reports that there was an armed shooter on that roof 26 minutes before the shooter fired any shots.
I can understand why a police or SS sniper wouldn’t squeeze off a round at an uncertain target in this day and age, but it was absolutely inexcusable for the situation to ever get to the point where Trump was standing there exposed at all once the threat had been identified.
Personally, I don’t buy all the situational confusion nonsense. They have radios. They had time. They even had warnings plural. They’re not ‘listening to the rally’. They’re looking thru scoops and listening to their radios. And then there’s even more they have going for them. This is not a chaotic urban environment. This is a simple field with several very obvious buildings. Gets me so mad to think they’re going to get away with it. People buying their bs.