(07-14-2024, 11:17 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(07-14-2024, 10:43 PM)Caldrac Wrote: Do most police forces protect a former President or leading candidate?

It's just a really, really stupid [BLEEP] SOP.

A man with a long range rifle has a scope and is looking at the President through it.

Why would you wait? Where's the logic in that? If someone broke into your home, are you going to wait for them to punch you in the face? Shoot you? Your wife? Your child?

If you were seeing someone with a gun waving it at you or aiming it at you? Are you going to give them a Gentleman's Agreement?

Just assume it's all for show? He's not serious?

I mean, come on. Where is the [BLEEP] logic here?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

---

What the [BLEEP] is she doing out here at rallies for? Not even the [BLEEP] President.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

The article says they don't want to end up shooting a guy who just had a telescope or a camera.
This is the wrong thing to focus on.  SS has to guard events in all types of environments.
They can not allow the President (or the candidate) to enter an area with any question mark or uncertain expression, and if an unknown suspicious guy is discovered, they just have to get the man (or woman) out of there and figure out if it's a gun or a camera later.

Once again.

I hate people.

Your logic is awful. This is why people hesitate and get killed.

If a trained marksman (multiple actually), with easily a more superior rifle and scope at his disposal is unable to identify some prick with another rifle basically a full football field away?

We have a problem. I understand the SOP. It is what it is. It needs to be revised effective today and immediately redefined this week.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

---