World leaders have pretty well unanimously condemned the shooting, and said that their *thoughts and prayers are with Trump*, his family etc, etc. (whatever they may mean by that ubiquitous phrase).
They mean well, I daresay, but there may be some people who wish the shooter had succeeded in killing Trump. [redacted]
(ETA Redaction for legal risk, Doublethink, Admin)
I have seen a brief film of Trump being shot. It was a flesh wound apparently. What I don't understand is that the bullet could not fail to hit the crowd of people sitting behind him.
I have read that the gunman has been shot dead. He is unable for interview !!
Well, I'd imagine anyone reckless and violent enough to attempt to murder someone in a public place wouldn't be that concerned about 'collateral damage' to anyone who happened to be in the line of fire.
Well, I'd imagine anyone reckless and violent enough to attempt to murder someone in a public place wouldn't be that concerned about 'collateral damage' to anyone who happened to be in the line of fire.
The list of casualties comes to two dead, including the suspect, two seriously wounded, and an injured presidential candidate. Except for the job description of that last individual this would just be another Saturday night in the U.S.
Well, I'd imagine anyone reckless and violent enough to attempt to murder someone in a public place wouldn't be that concerned about 'collateral damage' to anyone who happened to be in the line of fire.
The list of casualties comes to two dead, including the suspect, two seriously wounded, and an injured presidential candidate. Except for the job description of that last individual this would just be another Saturday night in the U.S.
Well, I'd imagine anyone reckless and violent enough to attempt to murder someone in a public place wouldn't be that concerned about 'collateral damage' to anyone who happened to be in the line of fire.
The list of casualties comes to two dead, including the suspect, two seriously wounded, and an injured presidential candidate. Except for the job description of that last individual this would just be another Saturday night in the U.S.
No it wouldn't.
It would be a very light Saturday night.
I'm not sure this exchange is very helpful. I'm not minimising the insane level of gun violence in the US, even allowing for the statistical issue that most of it involves illegally held firearms.
I do have to question how a 20 year old kid - or anyone else for that matter - has the legal right to stroll into a store and walk out with a military style weapon but that's for the Americans to sort out.
Any shooting is one too many. One that might trigger further political and civil unrest and even provoke civil war is something else again.
I do have to question how a 20 year old kid - or anyone else for that matter - has the legal right to stroll into a store and walk out with a military style weapon but that's for the Americans to sort out.
According to the New York Times Thomas Matthew Crooks did not have a criminal record in Pennsylvania. This means that right up until the moment he pulled the trigger he was an example of the "law abiding gun owner" whose right to bear arms under the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.
FWIW, I interpreted @KoF's post as meaning that Trump will be electorally invincible. (A prediction I dispute, because I don't see Democrats or even many swing-voters suddenly deciding he's a cool guy based on a grazed ear, but it might motivate a few disengaged-Republicans to get out and vote.)
FWIW, I interpreted @KoF's post as meaning that Trump will be electorally invincible. (A prediction I dispute, because I don't see Democrats or even many swing-voters suddenly deciding he's a cool guy based on a grazed ear, but it might motivate a few disengaged-Republicans to get out and vote.)
An unsuccessful assassination attempt on a presidential candidate is an extremely low n event, as the statisticians would put it. The examples I can think of are Theodore Roosevelt (lost), GeraldFord twice (lost), and George Wallace (lost).
Trump loves open air rallies. I wonder if the shooting will impact where he has them now.
I note how the Secret Service tried to cover Trump with their bodies. He kept trying to emerge out of that scrum to pump his fist in the air, they kept trying to cover him. If it weren't for the seriousness of the incident, it was, well, you know.
I think possibly not. This incident has got me wondering how much Trump believes his own hype. I was reminded of how, during the January insurrection, it is said that he wanted to go to the Capitol himself and his security detail had to forcibly restrain him from doing so. Does he truly believe himself the leader of a vast array of devoted followers who together can save America??
A more positive interpretation of his response to Saturday's events is (as others have said) that he has more physical courage than he's previously been given credit for, and has some consideration for those who had come to hear him speak so felt he needed to reassure them that he was still alive and kicking. (At start of the battle of Hastings a rumour went round the Norman troops that Duke William was dead. His response was to "ride through his forces showing his face and yelling that he was still alive ". A nightmare for his bodyguards no doubt, but understandable in the great scheme of things.) Perhaps Trump felt he had to do a similar thing??
I am in the UK and very fearful for the USA. You are in my prayers.
Trump loves open air rallies. I wonder if the shooting will impact where he has them now.
I note how the Secret Service tried to cover Trump with their bodies. He kept trying to emerge out of that scrum to pump his fist in the air, they kept trying to cover him. If it weren't for the seriousness of the incident, it was, well, you know.
Reminds me of his in Day Of The Jackal, De Gaulle refuses to limit his public appearances even after being made aware of the assassination plot against him(*), thus creating major headaches for his security team.
(*) Apart from the shooting at his car in the beginning, that movie is pure fiction, IOW there was no hired hit-man trying to kill De Gaulle. His arrogant recklessness as shown by the screenwriters kinda fit the public image of the man, though.
FWIW, I interpreted @KoF's post as meaning that Trump will be electorally invincible. (A prediction I dispute, because I don't see Democrats or even many swing-voters suddenly deciding he's a cool guy based on a grazed ear, but it might motivate a few disengaged-Republicans to get out and vote.)
An unsuccessful assassination attempt on a presidential candidate is an extremely low n event, as the statisticians would put it. The examples I can think of are Theodore Roosevelt (lost), GeraldFord twice (lost), and George Wallace (lost).
And Harry Truman, who didn't stand for re-election and obviously left no coattails for Stevenson.
(Incidentally, including a dead perpetrator in both instances, the body count for the attempt on Truman and the attempt on Trump are the same.)
I do have to question how a 20 year old kid - or anyone else for that matter - has the legal right to stroll into a store and walk out with a military style weapon but that's for the Americans to sort out.
I'm going to throw in my thought on this, based on my childhood and early adulthood when I lived very close to that area. My guess (without having heard anything specific), is that the assassin used a hunting rifle. Back when I was young, almost every household had at least one rifle and several shotguns. It was not difficult to buy one, because the area consisted mostly of farmers and hunters. The big difference was, nobody, nobody ever thought about shooting a person back then. If a young person even accidentally swung his/her gun in the direction of a human, they would be reamed up one side and down the other by everyone!
Yes, I shot Dad's .30-06 rifle and 16 gauge shotguns, and I was death on targets. I would have rather starved than shoot an animal, though.
The young man used an assault rifle that was registered to his father. He had tried out for his high school rifle team (yes, it is considered a sport in some parts of the country), but he did not make the team. Might have been different if he had.
The kid was known as a loner in high school and jr. college.
Several people in the crowd had tried to tell law enforcement, they had seen him on the roof where he shot from. One local officer did try to check out the roof, but when the officer poked his head over the roof, the shooter aimed his gun at the officer. The officer ducked down, and the shooter returned his attention to Trump. He likely shot in haste, not really taking aim.
I do have to question how a 20 year old kid - or anyone else for that matter - has the legal right to stroll into a store and walk out with a military style weapon but that's for the Americans to sort out.
So, um, this is a thing:
Headline: Ammo vending machines offer "24/7" access to bullets at some U.S. grocery stores
Yes, it was an AR15, whatever that is, although the initials suggest 'Assault Rifle.'
I've had American gun-advocates of varying degrees of sanity or rationality ranging from vaguely plausible to bat-shit crazy try to convince me on social media that there's a need for such things and that I was clearly deficient as a husband and father not to want something similar to defend my family from criminals or resist the UK government should the need arise.
That was before I learned only to use social media to post holiday snaps and videos of cute anteaters.
So no, @jedijudy this wasn't The Waltons or The Little House on the Prairie.
It does seem the lad involved acquired the rifle from his father but as @ChastMastr chillingly reminds us the possibility of almost anyone and everyone acquiring firearms and ammunition in the US is very apparent.
The BBC interviewed one of the people who'd seen the sniper on the roof shortly after the incident. I didn't know the bit about the police officer taking a look only to duck back after the gunman pointed the rifle in his direction.
Contrary to @stetson I don't think think we can tamp this down as merely a 'grazed ear incident.' Two people died and others were seriously hurt. A major political figure of global significance came within a whisker of taking a bullet through the face. If he hadn't moved his head just before the bullet struck we could potentially be dealing with a dead or seriously injured US Presidential candidate with all the implications that would have for further instability, unrest and political violence.
What about the man who died*, and the other person who was seriously injured? Maybe Trump feels that, with him being saved by God, collateral damage doesn't matter...
(*yes, I know the shooter died, too, but presumably Trump would say that that was God's vengeance...).
trump will play the ‘God’ card any time it’s to his advantage. He’ll pretend any belief if he’s sees it as going towards achieving his goal. He’ll use this situation to the maximum - and then some.
I find it incredible that the roof where the gunman was had not been cleared long before the event by the secret service. I'm also somewhat perturbed that the secret service snipers who killed him did so, rather than wounding - they're trained marksmen, were well within distance and with telescopic sights.
I'm also somewhat perturbed that the secret service snipers who killed him did so, rather than wounding - they're trained marksmen, were well within distance and with telescopic sights.
'Shooting to wound' is a Hollywood trope rather than real life. In reality, once you're sending rounds downrange there's an expectation that it will be fatal, and wounded but not fatal is a nice-to-have.
Quite apart from anything else there's no way of really knowing if you're going to incapacitate someone with a flesh wound, which is sort of what you need with an active shooter.
Finally, even for a trained sniper, aiming to wound opens a whole can of worms if you're a milimeter too far one way or the other and it turns out to be fatal anyway.
Bottom line, by the time police/army/whoever are opening fire, it's to kill.
As an aside, I've been shooting all my life (school, university, forces, pheasants), am a pretty good marksman, and if someone pointed to someone and ordered me to 'wound them' I wouldn't like to follow through.
By the time you're aiming to wound, you're building in a margin for not hitting at all. Which is why in practice you aim for the head or the torso, which tends to be fatal... no one is trying to shoot guns out of people's hands, or put a bullet in their foot at 500 yards unfortunately.
According to the New York Times Thomas Matthew Crooks did not have a criminal record in Pennsylvania. This means that right up until the moment he pulled the trigger he was an example of the "law abiding gun owner" whose right to bear arms under the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.
'As part of a well-regulated militia' - as you yourself have said many times.
This is the part of American culture that looks really odd from across the pond. We had a (really shocking) triple murder recently. The murderer used a crossbow and immediately, the government began to consider changes to the law on crossbow ownership (it's not really regulated at the moment). Guns are already very heavily regulated here - largely as a result of massacres. Of course it's easier to do that here because we don't have any large dangerous carnivores in the wild.
Oh well. Thoughts and prayers, Mr Trump. Thoughts and prayers.
In terms of rules of engagement for firearms officers, I can offer a little bit a context and explanation. I am not a firearms expert but I know about gunshot wounds. I am trained in advanced surgical management of trauma. Although I have had minimal actual exposure to actually treating gunshots as they are so rare in children in the UK, thankfully.
A high velocity round (I.e. a bullet from a rifle) does a lot of damage to the tissues. This damage is over a much greater area than the cross section of the round, as the energy transfer means a pressure wave within the tissue is much wider than the round itself. There’s also significant variation in how different rounds behave.* Thus at any kind of range, shooting to wound is an unreasonable idea. Even a round in the thigh could easily be fatal as the pressure wave will probably take out the femoral artery. That's usually fatal but would not necessarily immediately incapacitate the target. They may well collapse in a few seconds but that's a LOT of time to fire back.
Police snipers are trained to shoot to incapacitate. I.e. the intent is to ensure the target cannot fire back. That means the shot is likely to be fatal. There is no way with a firearm at range to reliably incapacitate a target without firing a shot that is probably fatal.
I don't know what the current training is, but historically British police were trained to aim for the chest. The odds of a fatal shot are slightly less than a headshot but it's a bigger target. Hence, maximising the odds of neutralising the threat.
I suspect the Secret Service's philosophy is much the same. They may choose head shots in certain circumstances. The angle on a prone shooter may necessitate it.
The investigating officer who comes in afterwards would love to have a live suspect but for the protection team on duty, that would just be a fortunate accident. They shoot to immobilise, knowing that to do so, they must fire shots that are very likely to be fatal.
AFZ
*It's an oddity but a fact that certain types of rounds that the army are not allowed to use by International Law are routinely issued to police forces.
I hear that President Biden made a thoughtful speech today, appealing for calm etc. - has this gone down well in the US?
Trump is also making speeches, of course...
(BTW, I find it rather creepy that so many US sources refer constantly to *President* Trump. He isn't, though he was, and may well be again, but even so...).
Out of interest, does anyone else remember an incident in the early days of the Trump Presidency when he (Trump) tried to dismiss his security (Secret Service) protection?
I am feeling old and maybe I'm misremembering.
I'm not spreading rumours or conspiracies, I'm just trying to think about Trump's previous relationship with the Secret Service bodyguards and law enforcement.
(BTW, I find it rather creepy that so many US sources refer constantly to *President* Trump. He isn't, though he was, and may well be again, but even so...).
It may be a little odd but it is formally correct. All former presidents get the honorific title. Only the current incumbent is The President but Presidents Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama are all addressed in this way.
Contrary to @stetson I don't think think we can tamp this down as merely a 'grazed ear incident.' Two people died and others were seriously hurt. A major political figure of global significance came within a whisker of taking a bullet through the face. If he hadn't moved his head just before the bullet struck we could potentially be dealing with a dead or seriously injured US Presidential candidate with all the implications that would have for further instability, unrest and political violence.
Well, I was specifically talking about how the incident would effect swing-voters' attitude toward Trump's candidacy. So, to the extent that their sympathies have any influence at all in that regard, I think it'll be their sympathies for Trump. Not the dead attendee(whose name seems nowhere in the media, I had to google it), and certainly not the dead gunman, the latter whom almost no one will sympathize with.
It appears that Trump's pet justice, Aileen Cannon, has come up with an excuse to dismiss the documents case. Allegedly the special prosecutor was illegally appointed. That, to me as a layman, sounds like a crock of shit. If it were actually the case she'd have dismissed the case when first filed, not waited this long. I'm sure trained legal minds will weigh in ( @Nick Tamen ?) but I'm assuming this decision can and will be appealed but is just intended to further delay proceedings until after the election.
So no, @jedijudy this wasn't The Waltons or The Little House on the Prairie.
I'm positive the 20 year old wasn't John Boy or Pa. All I was trying to suggest is that it's easy in Pennsylvania to get a rifle. Apparently it's also fairly easy to get an AR.
BTW, when my next door neighbor was held at gunpoint a few years ago, my boss (who is anti-firearms of all sorts) offered to get me a gun. I thanked him but refused. I will not ever have a gun in my house. I know from experience exactly what they can do. @alienfromzog gave a very good description.
(BTW, I find it rather creepy that so many US sources refer constantly to *President* Trump. He isn't, though he was, and may well be again, but even so...).
It may be a little odd but it is formally correct. All former presidents get the honorific title. Only the current incumbent is The President but Presidents Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama are all addressed in this way.
(BTW, I find it rather creepy that so many US sources refer constantly to *President* Trump. He isn't, though he was, and may well be again, but even so...).
It may be a little odd but it is formally correct. All former presidents get the honorific title. Only the current incumbent is The President but Presidents Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama are all addressed in this way.
Actually, it is formally incorrect. Formally correct would be to address him as “Mr. Trump” (or “Mr. Carter,” “Mr. Clinton,” “Mr. Bush” or “Mr. Obama”), and to refer to him as “former President Trump.”
While formally incorrect, addressing or referring to former presidents simply as “President Surname” is common enough that it could easily be assumed that it is correct.
It appears that Trump's pet justice, Aileen Cannon, has come up with an excuse to dismiss the documents case. Allegedly the special prosecutor was illegally appointed. That, to me as a layman, sounds like a crock of shit. If it were actually the case she'd have dismissed the case when first filed, not waited this long. I'm sure trained legal minds will weigh in ( @Nick Tamen ?) but I'm assuming this decision can and will be appealed but is just intended to further delay proceedings until after the election.
I haven’t read the decision, but I wouldn’t chalk it up to an intent to delay proceedings until after the election. That ship had already sailed, and even without this order, the case wasn’t going to trial before November.
I think it could be chalked up to Judge Cannon’s desire to help Trump. Clarence Thomas did opine in the presidential immunity case—in words that carry no precedential value at all—about whether the special prosecutor was illegally appointed. Perhaps that emboldened Judge Cannon.
(BTW, I find it rather creepy that so many US sources refer constantly to *President* Trump. He isn't, though he was, and may well be again, but even so...).
It may be a little odd but it is formally correct. All former presidents get the honorific title. Only the current incumbent is The President but Presidents Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama are all addressed in this way.
Actually, it is formally incorrect. Formally correct would be to address him as “Mr. Trump” (or “Mr. Carter,” “Mr. Clinton,” “Mr. Bush” or “Mr. Obama”), and to refer to him as “former President Trump.”
While formally incorrect, addressing or referring to former presidents simply as “President Surname” is common enough that it could easily be assumed that it is correct.
<snip>
Oops, thanks Nick. But I'll claim the moral victory as it were...
On the Canon decision: IANAL but I've been following this closely, including a particular podcast I would recommend that is cohosted by a former acting-director of the FBI....
Anyway, Judge Canon is under qualified for the role, massively out of her depth and extremely biased towards the president who appointed her. She has been slowly killing this case.
Her dismissal today is legally ridiculous but probably helpful as it enables Jack Smith to go to the 11th circuit. The 11th is very conservative but not nuts so they will reverse her and remove her so the case (which is a slam dunk if it ever meets a jury) can proceed unless the Supreme Court interferes.
She's pitching for Trump to put her on the Supreme Court next year...
A bit of correction. The news here says the rifle was an AR style weapon, not necessarily an AR15. And the "AR" designation does not technically mean Assault Rifle, though it seems to have taken on that definition. "AR" originally stood for the maker of the gun, Armalite, now a division of Colt. There are several AR style guns out there. The common characteristics are:
they have a carry handle
they have a pistol grip
they have a large capacity clip, and
they all fire .223 ammo, the same ammo NATO uses in its light rifles. 5.56mm
Not the dead attendee(whose name seems nowhere in the media, I had to google it).
The BBC reported the dead member of the public as volunteer fire chief Corey Comperatore, and also the other two members of the public who were seriously injured.
If the claim is that the special counsel was not properly appointed, that is a debatable claim and could easily end up in an appellate court.
Oh, I have no doubt that it will be appealed.
In reply to @HarryCH , I said *Would even that affect Trump's progress towards a second presidential term? He seems unstoppable.*
The case is essentially irrelevant to the presidential run. It should have gone to trial in March but Canon has made that impossible - even before today's decision.
Conversely if re-elected Trump will kill the case which is 100% obstruction of justice... but apparently that's OK now...
Not the dead attendee(whose name seems nowhere in the media, I had to google it).
The BBC reported the dead member of the public as volunteer fire chief Corey Comperatore, and also the other two members of the public who were seriously injured.
Yeah, they say he died diving over his family to protect them.
Why? Is it inconceivable that as the first shots ring out and people dive for cover that some people there will put their bodies over the people they love? Why besmirch the memory of someone you've never met by questioning what his family have said?
Comments
That's what I meant, that's all that I meant. He doesn't need to be divine to have supporters who believe he has divine protection.
They mean well, I daresay, but there may be some people who wish the shooter had succeeded in killing Trump. [redacted]
(ETA Redaction for legal risk, Doublethink, Admin)
Doublethink, Admin
Well, I'd imagine anyone reckless and violent enough to attempt to murder someone in a public place wouldn't be that concerned about 'collateral damage' to anyone who happened to be in the line of fire.
Indeed. Apologies for crossing a line.
The list of casualties comes to two dead, including the suspect, two seriously wounded, and an injured presidential candidate. Except for the job description of that last individual this would just be another Saturday night in the U.S.
And that’s how I read what you wrote.
No it wouldn't.
It would be a very light Saturday night.
I'm not sure this exchange is very helpful. I'm not minimising the insane level of gun violence in the US, even allowing for the statistical issue that most of it involves illegally held firearms.
I do have to question how a 20 year old kid - or anyone else for that matter - has the legal right to stroll into a store and walk out with a military style weapon but that's for the Americans to sort out.
Any shooting is one too many. One that might trigger further political and civil unrest and even provoke civil war is something else again.
This is desperate.
According to the New York Times Thomas Matthew Crooks did not have a criminal record in Pennsylvania. This means that right up until the moment he pulled the trigger he was an example of the "law abiding gun owner" whose right to bear arms under the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.
An unsuccessful assassination attempt on a presidential candidate is an extremely low n event, as the statisticians would put it. The examples I can think of are Theodore Roosevelt (lost), Gerald Ford twice (lost), and George Wallace (lost).
I note how the Secret Service tried to cover Trump with their bodies. He kept trying to emerge out of that scrum to pump his fist in the air, they kept trying to cover him. If it weren't for the seriousness of the incident, it was, well, you know.
A more positive interpretation of his response to Saturday's events is (as others have said) that he has more physical courage than he's previously been given credit for, and has some consideration for those who had come to hear him speak so felt he needed to reassure them that he was still alive and kicking. (At start of the battle of Hastings a rumour went round the Norman troops that Duke William was dead. His response was to "ride through his forces showing his face and yelling that he was still alive ". A nightmare for his bodyguards no doubt, but understandable in the great scheme of things.) Perhaps Trump felt he had to do a similar thing??
I am in the UK and very fearful for the USA. You are in my prayers.
But, thank you for your prayers.
Reminds me of his in Day Of The Jackal, De Gaulle refuses to limit his public appearances even after being made aware of the assassination plot against him(*), thus creating major headaches for his security team.
(*) Apart from the shooting at his car in the beginning, that movie is pure fiction, IOW there was no hired hit-man trying to kill De Gaulle. His arrogant recklessness as shown by the screenwriters kinda fit the public image of the man, though.
And Harry Truman, who didn't stand for re-election and obviously left no coattails for Stevenson.
(Incidentally, including a dead perpetrator in both instances, the body count for the attempt on Truman and the attempt on Trump are the same.)
I'm going to throw in my thought on this, based on my childhood and early adulthood when I lived very close to that area. My guess (without having heard anything specific), is that the assassin used a hunting rifle. Back when I was young, almost every household had at least one rifle and several shotguns. It was not difficult to buy one, because the area consisted mostly of farmers and hunters. The big difference was, nobody, nobody ever thought about shooting a person back then. If a young person even accidentally swung his/her gun in the direction of a human, they would be reamed up one side and down the other by everyone!
Yes, I shot Dad's .30-06 rifle and 16 gauge shotguns, and I was death on targets. I would have rather starved than shoot an animal, though.
The kid was known as a loner in high school and jr. college.
Several people in the crowd had tried to tell law enforcement, they had seen him on the roof where he shot from. One local officer did try to check out the roof, but when the officer poked his head over the roof, the shooter aimed his gun at the officer. The officer ducked down, and the shooter returned his attention to Trump. He likely shot in haste, not really taking aim.
So, um, this is a thing:
Headline: Ammo vending machines offer "24/7" access to bullets at some U.S. grocery stores
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ammo-vending-machines-bullets-sales-grocery-stores/
Even I'm flabbergasted by this and I live in Florida. (Not one of the three states, but we do have a reputation down here.) Just... yikes.
I've had American gun-advocates of varying degrees of sanity or rationality ranging from vaguely plausible to bat-shit crazy try to convince me on social media that there's a need for such things and that I was clearly deficient as a husband and father not to want something similar to defend my family from criminals or resist the UK government should the need arise.
That was before I learned only to use social media to post holiday snaps and videos of cute anteaters.
So no, @jedijudy this wasn't The Waltons or The Little House on the Prairie.
It does seem the lad involved acquired the rifle from his father but as @ChastMastr chillingly reminds us the possibility of almost anyone and everyone acquiring firearms and ammunition in the US is very apparent.
The BBC interviewed one of the people who'd seen the sniper on the roof shortly after the incident. I didn't know the bit about the police officer taking a look only to duck back after the gunman pointed the rifle in his direction.
Contrary to @stetson I don't think think we can tamp this down as merely a 'grazed ear incident.' Two people died and others were seriously hurt. A major political figure of global significance came within a whisker of taking a bullet through the face. If he hadn't moved his head just before the bullet struck we could potentially be dealing with a dead or seriously injured US Presidential candidate with all the implications that would have for further instability, unrest and political violence.
What about the man who died*, and the other person who was seriously injured? Maybe Trump feels that, with him being saved by God, collateral damage doesn't matter...
(*yes, I know the shooter died, too, but presumably Trump would say that that was God's vengeance...).
imo
'Shooting to wound' is a Hollywood trope rather than real life. In reality, once you're sending rounds downrange there's an expectation that it will be fatal, and wounded but not fatal is a nice-to-have.
Quite apart from anything else there's no way of really knowing if you're going to incapacitate someone with a flesh wound, which is sort of what you need with an active shooter.
Finally, even for a trained sniper, aiming to wound opens a whole can of worms if you're a milimeter too far one way or the other and it turns out to be fatal anyway.
Bottom line, by the time police/army/whoever are opening fire, it's to kill.
By the time you're aiming to wound, you're building in a margin for not hitting at all. Which is why in practice you aim for the head or the torso, which tends to be fatal... no one is trying to shoot guns out of people's hands, or put a bullet in their foot at 500 yards unfortunately.
'As part of a well-regulated militia' - as you yourself have said many times.
This is the part of American culture that looks really odd from across the pond. We had a (really shocking) triple murder recently. The murderer used a crossbow and immediately, the government began to consider changes to the law on crossbow ownership (it's not really regulated at the moment). Guns are already very heavily regulated here - largely as a result of massacres. Of course it's easier to do that here because we don't have any large dangerous carnivores in the wild.
Oh well. Thoughts and prayers, Mr Trump. Thoughts and prayers.
A high velocity round (I.e. a bullet from a rifle) does a lot of damage to the tissues. This damage is over a much greater area than the cross section of the round, as the energy transfer means a pressure wave within the tissue is much wider than the round itself. There’s also significant variation in how different rounds behave.* Thus at any kind of range, shooting to wound is an unreasonable idea. Even a round in the thigh could easily be fatal as the pressure wave will probably take out the femoral artery. That's usually fatal but would not necessarily immediately incapacitate the target. They may well collapse in a few seconds but that's a LOT of time to fire back.
Police snipers are trained to shoot to incapacitate. I.e. the intent is to ensure the target cannot fire back. That means the shot is likely to be fatal. There is no way with a firearm at range to reliably incapacitate a target without firing a shot that is probably fatal.
I don't know what the current training is, but historically British police were trained to aim for the chest. The odds of a fatal shot are slightly less than a headshot but it's a bigger target. Hence, maximising the odds of neutralising the threat.
I suspect the Secret Service's philosophy is much the same. They may choose head shots in certain circumstances. The angle on a prone shooter may necessitate it.
The investigating officer who comes in afterwards would love to have a live suspect but for the protection team on duty, that would just be a fortunate accident. They shoot to immobilise, knowing that to do so, they must fire shots that are very likely to be fatal.
AFZ
*It's an oddity but a fact that certain types of rounds that the army are not allowed to use by International Law are routinely issued to police forces.
Trump is also making speeches, of course...
(BTW, I find it rather creepy that so many US sources refer constantly to *President* Trump. He isn't, though he was, and may well be again, but even so...).
I am feeling old and maybe I'm misremembering.
I'm not spreading rumours or conspiracies, I'm just trying to think about Trump's previous relationship with the Secret Service bodyguards and law enforcement.
It may be a little odd but it is formally correct. All former presidents get the honorific title. Only the current incumbent is The President but Presidents Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama are all addressed in this way.
Well, I was specifically talking about how the incident would effect swing-voters' attitude toward Trump's candidacy. So, to the extent that their sympathies have any influence at all in that regard, I think it'll be their sympathies for Trump. Not the dead attendee(whose name seems nowhere in the media, I had to google it), and certainly not the dead gunman, the latter whom almost no one will sympathize with.
I'm positive the 20 year old wasn't John Boy or Pa. All I was trying to suggest is that it's easy in Pennsylvania to get a rifle. Apparently it's also fairly easy to get an AR.
BTW, when my next door neighbor was held at gunpoint a few years ago, my boss (who is anti-firearms of all sorts) offered to get me a gun. I thanked him but refused. I will not ever have a gun in my house. I know from experience exactly what they can do. @alienfromzog gave a very good description.
Fair enough - ISWYM.
Thanks!
While formally incorrect, addressing or referring to former presidents simply as “President Surname” is common enough that it could easily be assumed that it is correct.
I haven’t read the decision, but I wouldn’t chalk it up to an intent to delay proceedings until after the election. That ship had already sailed, and even without this order, the case wasn’t going to trial before November.
I think it could be chalked up to Judge Cannon’s desire to help Trump. Clarence Thomas did opine in the presidential immunity case—in words that carry no precedential value at all—about whether the special prosecutor was illegally appointed. Perhaps that emboldened Judge Cannon.
O well. I stand further corrected!
On the Canon decision: IANAL but I've been following this closely, including a particular podcast I would recommend that is cohosted by a former acting-director of the FBI....
Anyway, Judge Canon is under qualified for the role, massively out of her depth and extremely biased towards the president who appointed her. She has been slowly killing this case.
Her dismissal today is legally ridiculous but probably helpful as it enables Jack Smith to go to the 11th circuit. The 11th is very conservative but not nuts so they will reverse her and remove her so the case (which is a slam dunk if it ever meets a jury) can proceed unless the Supreme Court interferes.
She's pitching for Trump to put her on the Supreme Court next year...
The news today is no news really.
AFZ
A bit of correction. The news here says the rifle was an AR style weapon, not necessarily an AR15. And the "AR" designation does not technically mean Assault Rifle, though it seems to have taken on that definition. "AR" originally stood for the maker of the gun, Armalite, now a division of Colt. There are several AR style guns out there. The common characteristics are:
they have a carry handle
they have a pistol grip
they have a large capacity clip, and
they all fire .223 ammo, the same ammo NATO uses in its light rifles. 5.56mm
In reply to @HarryCH , I said *Would even that affect Trump's progress towards a second presidential term? He seems unstoppable.*
The case is essentially irrelevant to the presidential run. It should have gone to trial in March but Canon has made that impossible - even before today's decision.
Conversely if re-elected Trump will kill the case which is 100% obstruction of justice... but apparently that's OK now...
Yeah, they say he died diving over his family to protect them.