Attempted assassination of Donald Trump 13 July 2024

[Quirky]

Under US law, the USSS will provide protection to former presidents for their lifetime unless they decline protection.

...or surrounding structures have roof grades that exceed the rating of "gentle slope".

 

[Remius]

...or surrounding structures have roof grades that exceed the rating of "gentle slope".

“USSS expert weighs in after saying he was done”

More news at 11.

 

[KevinB]

The USSS mandate would be to protect the lives of US political leaders, including the President and former Presidents by providing them with appropriate security at public events.

Trump is a former US President.

Whether they provided him with appropriate security is subject to a current investigation.

As a Former President - he gets a PPD, and a UD ground element to his house/dwelling.

OPO (Office of Protective Operations) determines personnel allocations.

Due to the open air venue, they added SOD assets (A CATLite team of 4 agents, and 2 CS teams [each of two shooter/observers]) who where deployed that morning from DC.

Plus local field office personnel - who like most LEO's are not Protective Specialists, unless they came from PPD/VPD etc.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Under US law, the USSS will provide protection to former presidents for their lifetime unless they decline protection. They will also provide protection to presidential candidates within 120 days on an election unless the candidate declines protection. In both cases, the protection is coordinated between the USSS state and local law enforcement.

And that is, IMHO, the most important aspect in the fiasco that occurred this past Saturday. There is (or should) be a big difference between the resources available (and funded) to protect a sitting president and a former holder of the office (or a candidate). At what stage does responsibility for "personal protection" become untenable because of the protectee's activity. Back in the old days (when we tied onions to our belts because that was the fashion) ex-presidents were expected to lead relatively quiet existences post-office. Coordination with local agencies would have been the exception to daily routine and demands made to local authorities would not have dumped on them the expectation that (like in Butler) their entire resources be tasked for a campaign event without any reimbursement for the expense.

Bills for that requested additional police services were ignored in the past.

Why hasn't the Trump campaign paid all its police security bills?

Ten city governments from Arizona to Pennsylvania say the president’s political committee has yet to pay hundreds of thousands in security bills.

www.nbcnews.com

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Haggis]

So you're saying local LE carries responsibility on this space. Not just the USSS.

My understanding is that USSS is the lead agency with augmentation from local and state LEAs. USSS it seems, assigned responsibility for the structure in question to a local agency, I believe the Butler County Sheriffs Office.

 

[OldSolduer]

And let me add: We are in Canada. What you observe and deduce is from your Canadian point of view. Not only that, last time I checked the USA was an independent nation and quite capable of taking care of its own.
Criticism of individual agents and what you say BASED ON YOUR OPINION when you have no experience in the field is ridiculous.

ADDING - The systems designed by human beings are generally ok, BUT we rely on humans to staff them. AND we all know what humans can be like.

 

[Quirky]

“USSS expert weighs in after saying he was done”

More news at 11.

USSS director words not mine.

 

[KevinB]

USSS director words not mine.

And whose roof was it to secure? It was the local Butler PD/SO that had the responsibility for those buildings and rooftops - for reasons that I for sure cannot understand they didn't want to post up on them, but wanted to sit inside the building.

 

[RedFive]

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.

Have you had an opportunity to figure out what the risk is of my wearing appropriate PPE in appropriate situations?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Have you had an opportunity to figure out what the risk is of my wearing appropriate PPE in appropriate situations?

I think it's possible to give you guys the protection you deserve without with militarization aspect. It really seems like more of a US issue though.

 

[brihard]

I think it's possible to give you guys the protection you deserve without with militarization aspect. It really seems like more of a US issue though.

I believe it is. I don’t think many claims about ‘militarization’ of police in Canada are likely to withstand informed scrutiny. Pretty much anything we’ve got or use can be very clearly linked to articulable dangers that are more frequently faced, and there’s case law backing some of that up. It just happens to be the case that some of the dangers faced overlap some dangers faced by the military, and some of the mitigations in terms of equipment are consequently similar.

 

[lenaitch]

Have you had an opportunity to figure out what the risk is of my wearing appropriate PPE in appropriate situations?

Now I'm confused again whether the concern about "militarization" refers to role or appearance.

Is this something a union could/should address?

It depends on the legislation covering collective bargaining. In my former service, matters of uniform, equipment, operational policy, etc. are not. The association can certainly lobby, pester, etc. management to make changes but it it can't be a bargaining item (either side) or grieveable unless argued Health and Safety.

 

[Booter]

I think it's possible to give you guys the protection you deserve without with militarization aspect. It really seems like more of a US issue though.

Then what is militarization? When you use that word what do you mean.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Then what is militarization?

A loose but adequate definition is when a layman can't tell a soldier from a police officer. I suspect most people could adjust for the similarities in weapons, ballistic protection, and web gear. Where it gets difficult is when camouflage uniforms have to be part of the mix.

 

[brihard]

A loose but adequate definition is when a layman can't tell a soldier from a police officer. I suspect most people could adjust for the similarities in weapons, ballistic protection, and web gear. Where it gets difficult is when camouflage uniforms have to be part of the mix.

Camouflage is situationally dependent. Normal patrol officers, sure, black, blue, grey, something like that. For a tactical team it depends on the environments they’re likely to work in. Toronto and Ottawa both wear grey clothes. The bulk of their work is urban. OPP TRU and RCMP ERT wear olive green. They have a significant amount of work in green space by virtue of the types of environments they police, and their tactical units sometimes need camouflaged clothing for the same reason the army does- if they’re containing and negotiating with someone armed and barricaded with a rifle on a rural property, they want to be hard to see.

I don’t believe Canada has any real problem with normal patrol officers looking ‘militarized’. Some people may take issue with, eg, an external body armour carrier with pouches on it, but that’s just a reality of the amount of stuff we need to carry now.

The best current research on this in Canada is Blaskovits et al. from 2022.

https://carleton.ca/policeresearchlab/wp-content/uploads/The-thin-blue-line-between-cop-and-soldier-examining-public-perceptions-of-the-militarized-appearance-of-police.pdf

 

[Booter]

Camouflage is situationally dependent. Normal patrol officers, sure, black, blue, grey, something like that. For a tactical team it depends on the environments they’re likely to work in. Toronto and Ottawa both wear grey clothes. The bulk of their work is urban. OPP TRU and RCMP ERT wear olive green. They have a significant amount of work in green space by virtue of the types of environments they police, and their tactical units sometimes need camouflaged clothing for the same reason the army does- if they’re containing and negotiating with someone armed and barricaded with a rifle on a rural property, they want to be hard to see.

I don’t believe Canada has any real problem with normal patrol officers looking ‘militarized’. Some people may take issue with, eg, an external body armour carrier with pouches on it, but that’s just a reality of the amount of stuff we need to carry now.

The best current research on this in Canada is Blaskovits et al. from 2022.

https://carleton.ca/policeresearchlab/wp-content/uploads/The-thin-blue-line-between-cop-and-soldier-examining-public-perceptions-of-the-militarized-appearance-of-police.pdf

Beat me to it. Programs have these conversations all the time. What uniform is right and when should it be worn.

Soldiers and their kits look like they do by necessity - that’s why as time goes on the layout changes. The load. The way it’s carried,

It’s the same for police. As time goes on and they are expected to carry their house on their vest- there are only so many practical ways to wear kit,

And its scales up and down according to task.

It’s not militarization- its ergonomics and practicality.

“militarization” is a conversation that any free society should make sure it talks about when it Comes to treatment of its citizens.

It may be a barber telling you you need a haircut but I don’t find militarization to be a concern in Canada. People throw things you put on a helmet, people try and shoot you you get a scope and green jammies.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Then what is militarization? When you use that word what do you mean.

Lots of points covered about kit and equipment. Legitimately needing something vs wanting to look bad ass and special. The picture up thread of that LEO with the NVGs come to mind.

Also, attitude and mindset. Police that see themselves closing with a destroying the enemy or at war with criminals.

 

[PrairieFella]

Lots of points covered about kit and equipment. Legitimately needing something vs wanting to look bad ass and special. The picture up thread of that LEO with the NVGs come to mind.

Also, attitude and mindset. Police that see themselves closing with a destroying the enemy or at war with criminals.

My big hang up is mindset that goes with the kit and camo. Far too many cops seem to view the public in an adversarial fashion lately, at least in my interactions with friends and peers in the unit who are cops. You work for the public, not against them.

Maybe I'm being a little uncharitable because WPS wastes a shit ton of my taxes but that's neither here nor there haha.

 

[jackamela]

Any thoughts on Sen. Hawley's allegations that a number of the USSS agents protecting Trump were not actual USSS agents? (As fascinating as the off topic stuff about police kit is....)

 

[Booter]

I Lots of points covered about kit and equipment. Legitimately needing something vs wanting to look bad ass and special. The picture up thread of that LEO with the NVGs come to mind.

Also, attitude and mindset. Police that see themselves closing with a destroying the enemy or at war with criminals.

I’ve yet to be able to buy any equipment because it made anyone look like a badass. In fact every piece of kit I pursue I have to demonstrate a need for it versus the public perception. And I am involved in a lot of purchases.

Any thoughts on Sen. Hawley's allegations that a number of the USSS agents protecting Trump were not actual USSS agents? (As fascinating as the off topic stuff about police kit is....)

how can anyone here comment on a guy commenting on stuff he heard from someone else. It’s possible there is a course or a qualification that allows homeland security to augment USSS ops.

Or it could be that there’s been a steady reduction in capacity for agencies like the USSS because when things go well it’s seen as a waste because things are good- so if things don’t go bad often enough they seem unnecessary.

For example- look how all the sudden everyone is talking about the USSS. Where as two weeks ago they weren’t an agency anyone really paid any attention to.