>>374900>>374902The question you really have to ask yourself is, does this look more like someone who is in a position of power with much foresight and planning put him up to it, or does this look more like the school shooter decided to try his hand at political assassinations?
>It would have been the perfect headshot but for luck>losing wasn't the probable outcomeBut luck works the other way, too.
Matthew Crooks was damned lucky to get as far as he got, and there were several instances were a very marginally more competent shooter (like a PTSD afflicted suicidal veteran our country has thousands of) would have done better
First and most importantly, Crooks had no stealth at all. He was noticed by spectators, who even filmed him. He was noticed by law enforcement. There was even a Secret Service sniper trained on his position, who shot him a couple seconds after he shot at Trump. The only reason Crooks got as far as he did, I am sure, is because the Secret Service
really did not want to kill a kid, and wanted to resolve the issue without shooting him. If that sniper had
not hesitated, and shot Crooks as soon as the threat was beyond obvious, he would not have made off that first shot. A law enforcement officer is said to have even gone up, and then retreated when Crooks pointed his rifle at him. Crooks got lucky they did not take the situation more seriously. A more competent shooter probably would have used a longer range rifle and good have shot from further away. Or perhaps they would have been hidden. Or perhaps they would have had a plausible cover story as to why they were on the roof, like being a construction worker.
Anything other than gambling on the secret service doing nothing.
The question really is, do you think that if BlackRock had put a shooter up, they would have bet on him just being allowed to sit on a roof with a rifle? No. They would not have. But if this were just a school shooter trying to be Brutus, would they do this? Yes. Yes they would.
The second thing to keep in mind is that Crooks didn't take one shot. He took about four shots. And after the first shot, which missed, he didn't come close. The type of gun and caliber that Crooks was using, the 5.56 and the AR15, is basically designed to allow for accuracy in rapid fire. Making accurate follow up shots on the AR15 is not that hard. And he failed at it. Had he been actually trained to use a 5.56 caliber rifle - like literally any veteran would have been - he likely would have been at least closer to hitting Trump on the follow up shots. Remember that Lee Harvey Oswald made the headshot on the third shot, not the first.
Ask yourself, if this was a shooter hired by an analyst company, would they be poor at double tapping and follow up shots? Maybe, but there's no reason to think that they would. And if it were just a school shooter, would they suck at follow up shots. Well... yeah, probably.
And as for the shot that missed, yes, if Trump hadn't moved his head, he probably would have been hit in the skull by the bullet, and he maybe would have died from it. However, the shot was not well positioned in the center of his head. A shooter who was a better shot would likely not have missed on that first shot anyways, even with the slight turn of the head. And a better centered shot is more likely to cause fatal brain damage rather than a (serious) wound.
Again, do you think that this suggests a hired shooter, or a school shooter?
And finally, why use his daddy's AR15 at all? The 5.56 bullet is pretty deadly, but this is an operation
you can't afford to fuck up. Why not use a 7.62 bullet from an M1A or AR10? A 7.62 would be surer to kill in the event of a hit. It would have been less moved by the wind, which may have been why the bullet missed. And it would be accurate at a longer range, which would have allowed for a shot from further away. Also, a proper scope could have allowed for adjustments for windage.
BlackRock wouldn't need daddy's gun. But if you're just a wanna be assassin, no shit you use daddy's gun. It's what you have, and it's right there.
And no, I don't think that the Secret Service were trying to allow Trump to be killed. And for a simple reason. They shot the shooter shortly after he made his first few shots. If they wanted him to succeed, all they had to do was nothing for a bit longer, and let him have a fifth, sixth, or so chance to hit Trump. And it's not like Trump was running away to hide. He stood up again after the shots and gave the shooter another chance, or would have if the Secret Service hadn't already shot Crooks
So again, if someone had hired a shooter to kill Trump, is this what it would have looked like? No. There is so much room for improvement, it strains belief. Just look at Lee Harvey Oswald, the excellent-shot former marine who posed as a worker, and who was hidden from view basically until after he killed a cop in his escape. And if Matthew Crooks were basically a school shooter, it would look like... exactly what we got.