Q: Have the secret service not figured out how to best use drones?

[mpcook]

ALL Boogymen have Drones now just ask the Anti-Drone lobby!
He also owned a car, computer, phone, and probably a bag of peanut M&M's.(doesnt everybody).
Exactly how does the fact that he was a DJI customer change any facts or make him more prevalent to assisinate a presidential candidate?

Apparently the Trump shooter flew his drone over the site a couple of hours before he fired. https://www.wsj.com/politics/nation...hours-before-attempted-assassination-2d0e2e1a

 

[Cafguy]

Apparently the Trump shooter flew his drone over the site a couple of hours before he fired. https://www.wsj.com/politics/nation...hours-before-attempted-assassination-2d0e2e1a

Then The Headline should read - Incompetent secret service staff lets man fly Drone over site of Rally.

 

[mpcook]

Then The Headline should read "Incompetent secret service staff lets man fly Drone over site of Rally.

Yes, should have been a no-fly zone.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Yes, should have been a no-fly zone.

I believe it was.

And I'm going to assume the drone was broadcasting RID.

What a bunch of incompetent nitwits.

 

[Meta4]

I believe it was.
And I'm going to assume the drone was broadcasting RID.
What a bunch of incompetent nitwits.

See posts #5 & #7 here:

Trump shooter flew drone over venue hours before attempted assassination

It won't be long with crazy people doing crap like this that DJI drones will be totally outlawed in the US whats your opinion? Trump shooter flew DJI drone over venue hours before attempted assassination Read story here Trump shooter flew drone over venue hours before attempted assassination...

mavicpilots.com

 

[anotherlab]

This is one of those things that sound bad, but at the end of the day doesn't mean anything. Before the rally, the shooter could have walked all over the rally area and gathered the same information that he got from the drone. He could have used Google Earth.

Shouldn't the question be why was someone allowed to attend a rally while carrying an AR-15 type of weapon?

 

[RedBaron2]

A reason for not using drones might be it eliminates the possibility of a baddie launching and mixing one in with theirs, then succeeding in causing harm before they are aware and can act.

If there are no drones the second one is sited defensive measures for the candidate can be taken immediately.

Might work if, and only if, security was equipped with anti-drone devices. NO reports of such use thus far. The magnitude of security failures could have been deadly without help from our LORD ALMIGHTY.. A thorough review should be mandatory. The presentation of inaccurate information thus far CANNOT BE EXCUSED. Never worked for an employer that would tolerate these poor decisions.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Might work if, and only if, security was equipped with anti-drone devices. NO reports of such use thus far. The magnitude of security failures could have been deadly without help from our LORD ALMIGHTY.. A thorough review should be mandatory. The presentation of inaccurate information thus far CANNOT BE EXCUSED. Never worked for an employer that would tolerate these poor decisions.

Point is, if there aren't supposed to be any drones in the air then you know immediately there's a security threat if one is.

 

[rjwmorrell]

This is one of those things that sound bad, but at the end of the day doesn't mean anything. Before the rally, the shooter could have walked all over the rally area and gathered the same information that he got from the drone. He could have used Google Earth.

Shouldn't the question be why was someone allowed to attend a rally while carrying an AR-15 type of weapon?

Info in media reports suggests he may have hid the rifle ahead of the event, and his location was outside of the event perimeter (bet they'll change the size of their perimeters from now on!).

He was, apparently, spotted with a range finder or some type of scope. This could have been interpreted as not an immediate threat (Trump fan wanting to have a view the event out of curiosity?), and at any rate local police inside that building were directed to look for the kid, it seems. They were unable to locate him perhaps, not thinking he was on the roof.

This is a classic swiss cheese scenario, the holes lined up and it ended in tragedy, though through some miracle, not for the intended target.

 

[RedBaron2]

Point is, if there aren't supposed to be any drones in the air then you know immediately there's a security threat if one is.

RID is a tool; only one tool. My online app shows all GOOD RID-equipped drones and their RID registration numbers. Quite helpful in a recent situation. Any others in a high-security area should be disabled.

 

[crlmjohnson]

I thought that DJI drones where not authorize to be used by the Federal governement, becasue they where made in China. Also I just patch my DJI Mavic 3 last night, and the new patch, deleted all of my files on DJI server. the last I heard was there is a bill on POS desk to band DJI drones in US. There is a lot going on in the back ground with the drones right now.

 

[WNYBill]

I understand one of the other law enforcement agencies offered the SS drone surveillance and they refused it. WTH! Helps making conspiracy theories easier. Alphabet agencies and the media are trying to turn it into a joke.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, chiefly because it's usually such a ridiculous notion that so many disconnected people would be willing to cooperate in perpetrating such deception.

That said, it's really getting hard to accept this was just negligence and incompetence. Some serious look into emails and other administration internal communications to see if the Trump campaign was deliberately starved of SS resources is in order.

The denial of SS protection to Kennedy makes me suspicious regarding the motives driving SS resourcing decisions. It's hard to see that as anything other than political corruption designed to make it much harder for him to campaign, and force him out of the race.

 

[MS Coast]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist,

And then ...

It's hard to see that as anything other than political corruption designed to make it much harder for him to campaign, and force him out of the race.

Nothing unusual. Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley didn't have Secret Service coverage, either. Nor any other candidate other than the President and Vice-President during the past 20 years.

Ref: Campaign 2024 - Candidate Protection

Title 18 U.S.C.' 3056(a)(7) authorizes the U.S. Secret Service to provide protection for major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates:

• Protection is authorized by the DHS Secretary after consultation with the Congressional Advisory Committee;
• The Congressional Advisory Committee includes: Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and one additional member selected by the others;
• Protection under these guidelines should only be granted within one year prior to the general election. Protection more than one year prior to the general election should only be granted in extraordinary, case by case circumstances in consultation with the committee, based on threat assessment and other factors.

 

[Droning on and on...]

And then ...

Nothing unusual. Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley didn't have Secret Service coverage, either. Nor any other candidate other than the President and Vice-President during the past 20 years.

Actually, the opposing P/VP also always get SS protection once nominated as well.

Nothing unusual? It's RFK Jr. and I, and many others do consider this "unusual". Apparently you don't?

And now Biden has ordered SS protection for Kennedy. Why? The attempt was against Trump.

Unless there's some unusual reason to provide RFK Jr. with SS protection.

Why did Biden decide to extend protection to Kennedy after the attempt on Trump? Is he suddenly at risk and wasn't before?

Like I said, the pertinent question is why he was denied protection prior to the attempt on Trump if it's justified now, and if not, then why it has been extended to him.

Two plus two is not adding up to four in this, and many other aspects of this SS protection issue. What it does look like, especially in the Kennedy case, is some abuse of core responsibilities of the administration for political reasons, and then CYA when it's exposed.

 

[mavic3usa]

Isn't this the USCC?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[MS Coast]

Actually, the opposing P/VP also always get SS protection once nominated as well.

Presidents and Vice-Presidents receive Secret Service protection for the rest of their lives. Nominees receive protection, but not candidates for a party nomination.

Nothing unusual? It's RFK Jr. and I, and many others do consider this "unusual". Apparently you don't?

The usual practice has been not to provide Secret Service protection. It is unusual for RFK to receive it. I don't have an opinion on whether it's appropriate for RFK to receive it or not. I'm just making observations on who makes such decisions and what those decisions have been in the past.

Like I said, the pertinent question is why he was denied protection prior to the attempt on Trump if it's justified now, and if not, then why it has been extended to him.

That has been the normal practice, as we saw for Haley and DeSantis.

What it does look like, especially in the Kennedy case, is some abuse of core responsibilities of the administration for political reasons, and then CYA when it's exposed.

The decision on protection is by DHS in consultation with the Congressional Advisory Committee, which is bi-partisan - Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and one additional member selected by the others. Biden did not deny protection to RFK. Instead, he's provided despite the normal practice.

This is probably more political than discussions here should be. So, I'm bowing out.

​

 

[mavic3usa]

Good info: Campaign 2024 - Candidate Protection

 

[jwilson]

A qualified shooter with the right equipment can hit a target more than 2,000 yards (1,829 meters) away. To effectively cover every scenario, you need to turn that distance into a radius, meaning the Secret service needed to cover an area that is effectively more than 4 square miles. Watching every person in that size area would be challenging.

I have no doubt there were drones in the air, but how many may be classified info, as is most likely how much area each drone can cover at a time. It is very possible the shooter could have climbed into position and taken the shot, which I understand was about 300 yards distance, in just a few minutes time between drone passes. Undoubtedly, more info is forthcoming on this event.

Yea that's pretty incredible. Seems like it would almost be impossible to secure an are that big. Found this.

Longest recorded sniper kills - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[jwilson]

The Government has an anti Drone system called Silent Archer. The system uses bursts of microwave radiation to down Drones. I don't think they would be using their own Drones in the same area.

If they didn't have that, what's to keep a drone with explosives to fly to a person and detonate?