Not my area of expertise — and I certainly understand that “firing into the air” or “shoot to wound” are questionable tactics that can go badly ...
But if the SS sniper had fired a shot 10 feet away from the sniper, it seems like it would have accomplished 2 things:
1) Shaken up the sniper and dissuaded him from doing anything rash
2) Alerted the Secret Service on the stage who could have hustled Trump to safety.
My current position is that the poor performance shows that the FBI and Secret Service were actively involved in a plot to kill Trump. I’ll need really solid evidence to change my mind.
Next time the Rebels will take over Pennsylvania without having to fire a shot.
I'm not going to try to change your opinion, but when I see or hear comments like yours, my head spins. Poor performance can mean a lot of things, mostly incompetence. That does not mean malice. Its not solid evidence of a plot to kill Trump. But you need solid evidence there was not a plot to kill Trump to change your mind? Ok...but I hope you hear yourself.
> I certainly understand that “firing into the air” or “shoot to wound” are questionable tactics that can go badly <
Agreed. And I advocated for neither. Firing into the ground would have been a good option. And as I’m sure you will agree, “shoot to wound” is nonsense. It only works in the movies. Shoot to distract is what I was going for.
> My current position is that the poor performance shows that the FBI and Secret Service were actively involved in a plot to kill Trump. <
I won’t argue against that. At some point, a string of coincidences are no longer coincidences. That’s why I’d like to see RFK Jr in Trump’s next government. Yes, RFK Jr is a leftist. But he’d be the perfect person to investigate this assassination attempt. He’d be a bulldog.