Attempted assassination of Donald Trump 13 July 2024

[OldSolduer]

Does anyone know what the original mission of the USSS was?

 

[brihard]

Does anyone know what the original mission of the USSS was?

Counterfeiting if I remember right? Or something along those lines? Early day federal financial crimes infestigations, in any case. They still do that and start their career in investigations for several years before they go to protective.

 

[dapaterson]

Counterfeiting if I remember right? Or something along those lines? Early day federal financial crimes infestigations, in any case. They still do that and start their career in investigations for several years before they go to protective.

See, that's an easy mistake to make. In fact, their role was to prevent counterfeiting.

 

[OldSolduer]

Counterfeiting if I remember right? Or something along those lines? Early day federal financial crimes infestigations, in any case. They still do that and start their career in investigations for several years before they go to protective.

Something like that and IIRC they are under the direction of the Treasury Department. I do not recall how or why they got tagged with Protective Details. One would think that would be a military function.

 

[brihard]

Something like that and IIRC they are under the direction of the Treasury Department. I do not recall how or why they got tagged with Protective Details. One would think that would be a military function.

Not Treasury anymore- they moved over the DHS some years back, probably not long after 9/11.

Protective goes way back, I think it’s simply a matter of when there wasn’t anything and someone had to do it, they were federal and they were there. And it stuck.

 

[markppcli]

Something like that and IIRC they are under the direction of the Treasury Department. I do not recall how or why they got tagged with Protective Details. One would think that would be a military function.

Well in the 1870s some decided that private contracting the US federal law enforcement apparatus probably wasn’t the best of ideas and thus replacement for the Pinkertons.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Does anyone know what the original mission of the USSS was?

Early years​

Logo of the United States Secret Service
With a reported one third of the currency in circulation being counterfeit Abraham Lincoln established a commission to make recommendations to remedy the problem. The Secret Service was later established on July 5, 1865, in Washington, D.C., to suppress counterfeit currency. Chief William P. Wood was sworn in by Secretary of the Treasury Hugh McCulloch. It was commissioned in Washington, D.C. as the "Secret Service Division" of the Department of the Treasury with the mission of suppressing counterfeiting. At the time, the only other federal law enforcement agencies were the United States Customs Service, the United States Park Police, the U.S. Post Office Department's Office of Instructions and Mail Depredations (now known as the United States Postal Inspection Service), and the United States Marshals Service. The Marshals did not have the manpower to investigate all crime under federal jurisdiction, so the Secret Service began investigating a wide range of crimes from murder to bank robbery to illegal gambling.

United States Secret Service - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[OldSolduer]

Well in the 1870s some decided that private contracting the US federal law enforcement apparatus probably wasn’t the best of ideas and thus replacement for the Pinkertons.

You are correct - actually Pinkerton himself went on spy missions in the Civil War.

Private contractors were and are a thing....

 

[FJAG]

You are correct - actually Pinkerton himself went on spy missions in the Civil War.

Private contractors were and are a thing....

And Pinkerton's constant mistakes in giving the Confederates credit for significantly more manpower than they really had was the root cause of McLellan being the timid commander that he was.

 

[Jarnhamar]

US Marshals sounds like a cool job.

 

[OldSolduer]

US Marshals sounds like a cool job.

I will see your US Marshals (Tommy Lee Jones was pretty good) and raise you a Texas Ranger (Chuck Norris)

 

[brihard]

US Marshals sounds like a cool job.

Their fugitive task forces do a lot of hairy stuff. Probably pretty cool investigative/tracking work, with an increased chance of very bad days.

 

[lenaitch]

so. As a reference I teach a course for plain clothes officers and their holsters. The guys that teach it do a lot of work with them. Every once in a while, because of the nature of the clothes, the bulk, the holster- it doesn’t work smoothly.

That’s the nature of wearing a suit with a pistol. If it wasn’t that way you wouldn’t have all the tactical clothing you have out there- your clothing makes a difference.

As long as they have to look professional etc- that comes at a cost of efficiency. They strike a balance best they can but it’s not conducive to a consistent draw and holster. The holstering being even worse because your pants, your badge, your jacket are in the way- and your shirt came up when you were butchering your draw

It's not just the pistol, but the mags, handcuffs, radio, maybe baton and spray. In Ontario anyway, mandatory UoF options aren't differentiated between uniform and plain clothes. I noticed that several of the USSS members surrounding the President were wearing suspenders, simply to carry the weight of the gear.

Then there's always the 'old faithful' carry

View attachment 86649

It will undoubtedly be different in the US but, at least in Ontario, holsters have to meet provincial standards and, historically, plain clothes concerns have been given little weight. Right off the top, that image shows no retention method.

Seconded RE: my LARP and Gravy SEAL comment. It still stands that police militarization is gross.

Law enforcement appearance in general or just tactical kit?

Everybody has their own opinion. I have a neighbour who believes cops shouldn't be armed. To each their own.

 

[PrairieFella]

It's not just the pistol, but the mags, handcuffs, radio, maybe baton and spray. In Ontario anyway, mandatory UoF options aren't differentiated between uniform and plain clothes. I noticed that several of the USSS members surrounding the President were wearing suspenders, simply to carry the weight of the gear.




It will undoubtedly be different in the US but, at least in Ontario, holsters have to meet provincial standards and, historically, plain clothes concerns have been given little weight. Right off the top, that image shows no retention method.


Law enforcement appearance in general or just tactical kit?

Everybody has their own opinion. I have a neighbour who believes cops shouldn't be armed. To each their own.

In general. The Americans have been sliding towards police militarization for years. Problem being American cops aren't gendarmes, this have no business having paramilitary function or form. There's a profound culture difference between militaries and police forces and neither should try to be the other. These American cops sliding towards increased militarism has effects on mindset, which should be that not everyone is a threat and that they must serve and protect whilst minimizing loss of life, not Charlie take the trench.

I'm a community policing beat cop with a distinct uniform and a service sidearm kinda guy. Not tac gear for everyone with AR15s all around. I don't trust police officers with the latter. The simply aren't trained enough unless they're SWAT tasked and especially with the 4 weeks of training cops all too common in the USA.

 

[brihard]

I'm a community policing beat cop with a distinct uniform and a service sidearm kinda guy. Not tac gear for everyone with AR15s all around. I don't trust police officers with the latter. The simply aren't trained enough unless they're SWAT tasked and especially with the 4 weeks of training cops all too common in the USA.

I will accept that in the U.S. there has been far too much casual recourse to tactical operations launched by police who have the kit but are grossly deficient in training. Gear isn’t proficiency.

With that caveat aside, simply having patrol rifles isn’t ‘militarization’, they’re a tool that has unfortunately proven necessarily all too many times, at the cost of too many lives lost. A reality of policing in this day and age is that any officer could reasonably expect to occasionally encounter a situation where a pistol is wholly inadequate for the danger faced. Been there on quite a few occasions.

Having spent a fair bit of time behind both a pistol and a rifle in a couple different uniforms now- if there’s going to be a gun fight, the police are much more likely to end the fight swiftly and with the least risk of further harm to the public if they’re equipped with rifles that they’re trained to shoot. Firing a rifle within typical police gunfight distance isn’t rocket science, and your average officer is a lot more likely to hit with the rifle than the pistol. The sooner they hit and the fewer shots to stop the threat, the better for the safety of the public.

I’m open to hearing about your experience and training qualifying an opinion to the contrary.

 

[RedFive]

In general. The Americans have been sliding towards police militarization for years. Problem being American cops aren't gendarmes, this have no business having paramilitary function or form. There's a profound culture difference between militaries and police forces and neither should try to be the other. These American cops sliding towards increased militarism has effects on mindset, which should be that not everyone is a threat and that they must serve and protect whilst minimizing loss of life, not Charlie take the trench.

I'm a community policing beat cop with a distinct uniform and a service sidearm kinda guy. Not tac gear for everyone with AR15s all around. I don't trust police officers with the latter. The simply aren't trained enough unless they're SWAT tasked and especially with the 4 weeks of training cops all too common in the USA.

That's fine, but as a "beat cop" I've been:

• hit in the head with a hammer (would have liked a helmet)
• chased gun runners crossing into Canada at night through a mix of forested area and farmer's field with long ranges (would have liked NVG's and a IR laser on my C8)
• been in an armed and barricaded stand off with an individual with a high powered and scoped hunting rifle (was damn glad I had a C8 in my hands that could reach out far enough, and I had plates rated to .30-06 AP, but I didn't have a magnifier for my red dot, putting me at a distinct disadvantage)
• been to the range many times with my C8 so I'm not one of those cops you don't trust with a C8 and wished for a suppressor (8 hours of indoor 5.56 is a bad time, even with double banked ear protection)

I'm not saying I need to rock up to your burglary dressed like I'm ready to drop into Ukraine, but having these tools at hand can be beneficial for catching the baddies, or officer wellness or in certain cases life or death equipment.

And yet, my agency insists upon light grey dress shirts, bright gold light cavalry stripes, and can't seem to figure out how to ditch a 30 year old pistol that was obsolete 4 years after it was bought.

Give this a read. And by read I specifically mean Section 5, Equipment and Weapons.

Moncton Shooting Independent Review

 

[Fishbone Jones]

patrol rifles ,

Isn't that what the government calls assault weapons? You know, designed to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time?

Just fucking with ya.

 

[PrairieFella]

That's fine, but as a "beat cop" I've been:

• hit in the head with a hammer (would have liked a helmet)
• chased gun runners crossing into Canada at night through a mix of forested area and farmer's field with long ranges (would have liked NVG's and a IR laser on my C8)
• been in an armed and barricaded stand off with an individual with a high powered and scoped hunting rifle (was damn glad I had a C8 in my hands that could reach out far enough, and I had plates rated to .30-06 AP, but I didn't have a magnifier for my red dot, putting me at a distinct disadvantage)
• been to the range many times with my C8 so I'm not one of those cops you don't trust with a C8 and wished for a suppressor (8 hours of indoor 5.56 is a bad time, even with double banked ear protection)

I'm not saying I need to rock up to your burglary dressed like I'm ready to drop into Ukraine, but having these tools at hand can be beneficial for catching the baddies, or officer wellness or in certain cases life or death equipment.

And yet, my agency insists upon light grey dress shirts, bright gold light cavalry stripes, and can't seem to figure out how to ditch a 30 year old pistol that was obsolete 4 years after it was bought.

Give this a read. And by read I specifically mean Section 5, Equipment and Weapons.

Moncton Shooting Independent Review

I respect what you've done but I agree with your agency. In my mind the risk is simply too great by militarizing cops. To be completely honest, in a world of hard decisions I could accept the risk to police officers to preserve a purely civilian-presenting police force, that risk is why cops make so much money for what is a statistically not as dangerous a job as many think.

 

[Halifax Tar]

US Marshals sounds like a cool job.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Moncton Shooting Independent Review

That's the a-hole that cost me my M1A.