Trump Shot at Rally

[Edward Current]

I have six. So is that past the threshold?

I'd say it's more about the number of rounds fired than the number of weapons owned. I doubt you take those pieces to the range every weekend.

We have a troubled teen here in the neighborhood who was using his dad's guns for about a year — thousands and thousands of rounds, AR's, bump stocks, you name it. The quantity of ammo being used every evening was stunning, just in the cost alone. I heard one round hit a transformer on my property, and a neighbor told me (and the police) that he heard them whiz over his property on the other side. Now that's a gun nut — and he didn't own any of them! But, I haven't heard a single shot in a couple of months, after another neighbor, the ex-sheriff, told his dad, "They ought to lock the son of a bitch up!"

 

[Dan Burt]

I have six. So is that past the threshold?

2 Garands (WWII) (not currently functional)
1 Mauser Model 1892
1 Krag-Jørgensen Rifle (the first repeating rifle adopted by the US Army)
1 Colt Model 1860 Army Revolver (reproduction)
They're all weapons of war!

1 Full stock Hawkins rifle (muzzle loader)

So am I mentally ill or not?

When I was a kid I built a couple of dozen free flight model airplanes - some rubber band some nitro engine powered. Was I an airplane nut? After all, I only needed one.

In my opinion, no. I have three. A Windham Ar15 223/556, a Glock17 9mm (full size) and a Glock48 9mm (3/4 size version of the 17). Shooting is just a hobby for me. They are locked up or at the range with family and or friends shooting at paper.

 

[deirdre]

In my opinion, no. I have three. A Windham Ar15 223/556, a Glock17 9mm (full size) and a Glock48 9mm (3/4 size version of the 17). Shooting is just a hobby for me. They are locked up or at the range with family and or friends shooting at paper.

i think its 4 or more functioning guns (not collectibles like zw) OR if youve ever taken and posted a picture of yourself with your gun. (unless there are polar bear of feral hogs in your area then you can have a few more, so you can place them about for ease of access.)

 

[Greene]

Folks, think we might be wandering a bit off topic?

 

[Mendel]

USSS is part of Department of Homeland Security, so I'd be surprised if they're covered by any DOJ document that refers to "Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice".

Graham v. Connor applies to them regardless.
They can't shoot someone who climbs on a roof just because he wants to see Trump without paying for a ticket.

 

[Mick West]

Note: I've started a new sub-forum, as this topic is already quite complicated. Please try to start a new thread for each new claim or sub-topic around this subject
https://www.metabunk.org/forums/trump-shooting.65/

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Folks, think we might be wandering a bit off topic?

I think it's relevant. Here's why: Lots of people out there in the world are slinging the term "gun nut" around. They mean to explain the behavior of Crooks and to, somehow, convict the other tribe of the crime. "It wasn't our tribe, it was your tribe."

Slinging the term "gun nut" is an example of pathologizing behaviors and attitudes you don't like, and is fatuous tribalism. To give "equal time" it's on the same fatuous level as Trump Derangement Syndrome.

There's no such thing as "gun personality disorder." It's a label, meant to devalue the person, the tribe he belongs to and all thoughts or attitudes they might have. It's often used to poison the well. "This guy can't have rational thoughts. May I remind you that he owns a dozen guns? Many of them are military weapons."

In this case people are clearly trying to establish a kind of base level of irrationality. At least a base level. "Crooks was a gun nut. He was also a Republican."

Just as "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is meaningless rhetoric, meant to shut down rational thought and win the fight against the other tribe in an instant.

So labeling this guy "gun nut" says nothing about his mental state or motivations. You might as well say he was suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

 

[FatPhil]

Graham v. Connor applies to them regardless.
They can't shoot someone who climbs on a roof just because he wants to see Trump without paying for a ticket.

Where does the "wants to see Trump without paying for a ticket" part come from? That looks like a straw man, nobody has suggested shooting at anything that isn't a credible threat. SCOTUS give an example of what is not under consideration as relevant, so introducing the irrelevant isn't helpful:

In Garner, we addressed a claim that the use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect who did not appear to be armed or otherwise dangerous violated the suspect's constitutional rights, notwithstanding the existence of probable cause to arrest.

-- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/#394

More so, "saw someone wanting to see Trump without paying a ticket" certainly doesn't satisfy any "reasonableness" test, again addressed by SCOTUS:

The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. See Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 392 U. S. 20-22. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by an arrest based on probable cause, even though the wrong person is arrested, Hill v. California, 401 U. S. 797 (1971), nor by the mistaken execution of a valid search warrant on the wrong premises, Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U. S. 79 (1987). With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: "Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers," Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d at 1033, violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody

Page 490 U. S. 397

allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments -- in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -- about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.

-- Ibid. few paras later

Also remember, emphasis mine:

In deciding whether an officer used excessive force in a certain situation, a court should consider similar factors to those described in the earlier decision of Tennessee v. Garner. These include the severity of the crime, any threat posed by the individual to the safety of officers or other people, and whether the individual is trying to flee or resist arrest.

-- Idid, in the overview at the top

and that needs to be evaluated in the context that the "other people" under potential threat is a person they are willing to give their own life in order to protect - he's a very high value target.

 

[Greene]

Pathologizing behaviors and attitudes you don't like is fatuous tribalism.

There's no such thing as "gun personality disorder." It's a label, meant to devalue the person, the tribe he belongs to and all thoughts or attitudes they might have.

Just as "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is meaningless rhetoric, meant to shut down rational thought and win the fight against the other tribe in an instant.

So labeling this guy "gun nut" says nothing about his mental state or motivations. That's why this is relevant. You might as well say he was suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

You probably have a good idea that I agree. I made it clear that I feel said poster is looking to reinforce existing biases rather than build an objective picture of what happened. That being said, I don't feel like we're going to get anywhere quibbling over how many firearms need to be owned to meet the requirements of being labeled as such.

 

[Mendel]

Where does the "wants to see Trump without paying for a ticket" part come from? That looks like a straw man, nobody has suggested shooting at anything that isn't a credible threat.

Yes. My point is that just being on that roof does not constitute a "credible threat". Pointing a long gun at the officer checking out the situation does.

Public discourse seems to conflate the two at times.

(As an aside, I do not think that any person's life is more valuable than another's, regardless of the office they may have held.)

 

[Ann K]

Lots of people out there in the world are slinging the term "gun nut" around. They mean to explain the behavior of Crooks and to, somehow, convict the other tribe of the crime. "It wasn't our tribe, it was your tribe."

Mea culpa. I'm one of the people who used the term "gun nut". Although I think the term may be appropriate for people who, say, take photos to use on Christmas cards that show everyone in the family over the age of three proudly brandishing firearms as if they're a significant feature of their identity, my use of it generally applies to individuals who have the "might makes right" attitude. Those who think that they can impose their views upon others through sheer intimidation are more akin to primitive warlords than participants in a twenty-first century democracy. That's not necessarily a function of the number of guns owned by a family; in this instance it only took one.

What would be acceptable alternative shorthand terms for that mind-set? I think "gun nut" describes an attitude rather than a pathology, but "gun enthusiast" places the emphasis on the hardware itself, not the use of it or the symbolism of gun ownership.

 

[yoshy]

You probably have a good idea that I agree. I made it clear that I feel said poster is looking to reinforce existing biases rather than build an objective picture of what happened. That being said, I don't feel like we're going to get anywhere quibbling over how many firearms need to be owned to meet the requirements of being labeled as such.

"Reinforcing biases", yet so far, my current posterior prediction is right on the mark! Weird! Maybe I'm just psychic. Or maybe I was just properly synthesizing the data available, and updating those beliefs over time (Bayesian inference).

I didn't think the phrase "gun nut" would actually become the focus of some discussion here. For the record, @Z.W. Wolf, that collection sounds very cool and I would not consider someone a gun nut for just owning a few firearms. "Gun nut" to me is more about obsession with guns to the point they matter than human lives, stockpiling of MANY weapons, and fierce opposition to even mild forms of gun control. For example:

Trump tells supporters 'we have to get over it' after Iowa school shooting

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...-iowa-school-shooting-move-forward-rcna132610

Similarly, like @Edward Current said, someone who has no care for others in operation of guns. Also agree with @Ann K 's thoughts on the term.

Also this:

OR if youve ever taken and posted a picture of yourself with your gun

(Joking here as I have taken pictures of myself at the range with guns before)

 

[Giddierone]

Those trying to seek the motivation of a reportedly "conservative" shooter might want to refer to this InfoWars clip where they discuss the *hypothetical* assasination of Trump being a catalyst for civil war.

Raiklin: "Oh, it's going to be the best cleansing and the fastest cleansing that we've ever seen in my lifetime. I guaran—, I access, with almost certainty, with the highest level of confidence, that if they assassinate Trump, it is so game over for them."

https://meidasnews.com/news/please-...-benefits-of-assassinating-trump-6-months-ago

 

[RTM]

Those trying to seek the motivation of a reportedly "conservative" shooter might want to refer to this InfoWars clip where they discuss the *hypothetical* assasination of Trump being a catalyst for civil war.

Raiklin: "Oh, it's going to be the best cleansing and the fastest cleansing that we've ever seen in my lifetime. I guaran—, I access, with almost certainty, with the highest level of confidence, that if they assassinate Trump, it is so game over for them."

https://meidasnews.com/news/please-...-benefits-of-assassinating-trump-6-months-ago

Saw a bit of that, I felt like I needed a shower afterwards. Of course recent events will only play into Jones' prophetic abilities.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

You probably have a good idea that I agree. I made it clear that I feel said poster is looking to reinforce existing biases rather than build an objective picture of what happened. That being said, I don't feel like we're going to get anywhere quibbling over how many firearms need to be owned to meet the requirements of being labeled as such.

Was meant to be ironic humor intended to show the inherent silliness.

 

[yoshy]

Those trying to seek the motivation of a reportedly "conservative" shooter might want to refer to this InfoWars clip where they discuss the *hypothetical* assasination of Trump being a catalyst for civil war.

Raiklin: "Oh, it's going to be the best cleansing and the fastest cleansing that we've ever seen in my lifetime. I guaran—, I access, with almost certainty, with the highest level of confidence, that if they assassinate Trump, it is so game over for them."

https://meidasnews.com/news/please-...-benefits-of-assassinating-trump-6-months-ago

There's quite a large range of motives we could speculate on at this point:

• Left winger trying to take down Trump
• Right wing accelerationist following InfoWars
• Anti-abortion extremist since Trump has been sometimes opposed to a nationwide ban
• Trump connections to Epstein
• Iran! (Though the intelligence community is stressing there's no connection currently)
• False flag
• Just wanted to be famous. Had the opportunity to go after Trump instead of the sadly frequent school shooting

Point being is that we do need to be patient and avoid jumping off into conspiracy deep end.

The FBI has gained access to his phone so maybe we'll get some answers there.

 

[JMartJr]

Mea culpa. I'm one of the people who used the term "gun nut". Although I think the term may be appropriate for people who, say, take photos to use on Christmas cards that show everyone in the family over the age of three proudly brandishing firearms as if they're a significant feature of their identity, my use of it generally applies to individuals who have the "might makes right" attitude. Those who think that they can impose their views upon others through sheer intimidation are more akin to primitive warlords than participants in a twenty-first century democracy. That's not necessarily a function of the number of guns owned by a family; in this instance it only took one.

What would be acceptable alternative shorthand terms for that mind-set? I think "gun nut" describes an attitude rather than a pathology, but "gun enthusiast" places the emphasis on the hardware itself, not the use of it or the symbolism of gun ownership.

Over here in my world, we have the term "tako kichi," a Japanese phrase that translates as "kite crazy," used as an adjective or noun -- "he is tako kichi" or "she's a tako kichi." The phrase is used with a bit of a grin to acknowledge our more-than-normal interest in collecting, making, flying or studying kites and kite stuff that defines us a a group. So far as I know, it is not used negatively (but then kites do not have many negatove connotations!) "Kiters" is also commonly used. "Trekkies" and "Trekkers" self-identify as such, as a group based on an interest, while arguing over which term is preferrable. There are more examples but no need to list them here, I guess.

Presumably among firearm enthusiasts there is a term used to describe themselves as a group with a common interest, does anybody know what it might be? If so, I'd suggest using that when talking about them as a group -- and I'd avoid that term, if there is one, when discussing individuals where the interest has become unhealthy or destructive. If they don't have a term for themselves, I guess "firearms enthusiasts/collectors/hobbyists" have a fairly neutral feel to them and are descriptive.

 

[yoshy]

Over here in my world, we have the term "tako kichi," a Japanese phrase that translates as "kite crazy," used as an adjective or noun -- "he is tako kichi" or "she's a tako kichi." The phrase is used with a bit of a grin to acknowledge our more-than-normal interest in collecting, making, flying or studying kites and kite stuff that defines us a a group. So far as I know, it is not used negatively (but then kites do not have many negatove connotations!) "Kiters" is also commonly used. "Trekkies" and "Trekkers" self-identify as such as a group baswd on an interest, while arguing over which term is preferrable. There are more examples but no need to list them here, I guess.

Presumably among firearm enthusiasts there is a term used to describe themselves as a group with a common interest, does anybody know what it might be? If so, I'd suggest using that when talking about them as a group -- and I'd avoid that term, if there is one, when discussing individuals where the interest has become unhealthy or destructive. If they don't have a term for themselves, I guess "firearms enthusiasts/collectors/hobbyists" have a fairly neutral feel to them and are descriptive.

I do agree and will avoid the term "gun nut" from now on, especially since it somewhat derailed the thread! My bad y'all

 

[deirdre]

I do agree and will avoid the term "gun nut" from now on, especially since it somewhat derailed the thread! My bad y'all

don't feel bad, the moderators should have handled it from the jump. (i got yelled at for calling a pilot who crashed a plane full of kids a "psycho"..it's politically incorrect i guess)

my only reason for highlighting your use, is it waters down the term, in my opinion. AND, more importantly, gives people a false sense that they only have to be watchful of "gun nuts". Adam Lanza wasnt a gun nut. the ColumbineVirgina Tech shooter wasnt a gun nut. I don't believe this kid was a gun nut. etc. (unless we go with Annes definition of course)

but i dont agree with zw that it doesnt convey a pathology. i just personally dont think this kid fits the bill at this point for the term.

 

[deirdre]

"our chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller joins me now"

1:49 what they have delveloped is alot of the background about what happened that day.

..Youtube transcript is crap so my paraphrasing:
1:55 he went to work and asked for saturday off. said he'd see them sunday

2:12 when he got to fairgrounds "the first thing that puts him on the radar of security people" is near the entrance where they are screening people he had a Range Finder. shooters use these to measure distances to targets.
"they did flag 'what does he have this in his hand for'.

2:50 then he leaves the secure area. he doesnt turn up again until crowd says there's a guy crawling up roof.

3:10 there is an eerie moment where he's looking through range Finder at the counter sniper positions. and one of the counter sniper positions is looking at him through the scope.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThEB2bdrfa8

 

[Giddierone]

Just adding the link to this New York Times video [no paywall] which gives a very good overview of the timeline and various bits of footage from both TV cameras and witnesses.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000009576871/trump-shooting-assassination-attempt.html?smid=url-share

[Edit] one observation is that they're saying there were three sniper teams, two on the buildings behind the stage and one on the second floor of the building next to the one that the shooter climbed onto the roof of.

 

[Mendel]

Just adding the link to this New York Times video [no paywall] which gives a very good overview of the timeline and various bits of footage from both TV cameras and witnesses.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000009576871/trump-shooting-assassination-attempt.html?smid=url-share

[Edit] one observation is that they're saying there were three sniper teams, two on the buildings behind the stage and one on the second floor of the building next to the one that the shooter climbed onto the roof of.

Screenshots from that video:

The gunman positioned himself such that the North sniper team couldn't see him, and the South sniper team was initially surveilling in the other direction.

I kinda sympathize with the Secret Service for assuming that the building local law enforcement was staging from would be secure. If the local sniper team had been on the roof, it would have been.

 

[Henkka]

Kind of an unbelievable event that is ripe for conspiracy theories. Hard to understand why Trump getting on stage wasn't simply delayed if they had any inkling of suspicious activity, his crowds are used to waiting for hours. Also hard to understand how some mentally ill 20-year old just kind of... walked through the most advanced security service in the world, climbed up on the most obvious sniper spot imaginable, and fired off shots at the former president. All while in plain view of random Trump supporters who were pointing him out. And then the head of the Secret Service comes out and says the reason why they didn't have anyone on that roof is because it was "sloped", and therefore a safety risk. It's kind of mindboggling.

 

[Ann K]

I kinda sympathize with the Secret Service for assuming that the building local law enforcement was staging from would be secure. If the local sniper team had been on the roof, it would have been

It would appear from all the miscellaneous reports that the principle culprit (apart from the shooter himself) was communication. People on the ground, civilians that were nowhere near the sniper teams, had no way to tell local police officers about the guy on the roof except by shouting and pointing. I don't know the details of communication procedures among the local police, nor that of the police with the security guards, nor that of the security people with the snipers, except that such communications were simply not completed in time to prevent the shooting.

 

[Mendel]

People on the ground, civilians that were nowhere near the sniper teams, had no way to tell local police officers about the guy on the roof except by shouting and pointing.

Local police checked this roof within 2 minutes of being alerted to it. I do not know if that happened via "pointing and shouting", or if a spectator remembered they could use their smartphone to dial 911.

I also note from the various timelines that "he has a gun" came later.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Using info from this NYT video (Post 142), this is my first attempt to show where some bullets hit.

Green arrow - First shot
Red arrow - Shots fired after Trump was on ground and shielded by Agents

Edit: This isn't correct. See later posts.

 

[yoshy]

Kind of an unbelievable event that is ripe for conspiracy theories. Hard to understand why Trump getting on stage wasn't simply delayed if they had any inkling of suspicious activity, his crowds are used to waiting for hours. Also hard to understand how some mentally ill 20-year old just kind of... walked through the most advanced security service in the world, climbed up on the most obvious sniper spot imaginable, and fired off shots at the former president. All while in plain view of random Trump supporters who were pointing him out. And then the head of the Secret Service comes out and says the reason why they didn't have anyone on that roof is because it was "sloped", and therefore a safety risk. It's kind of mindboggling.

If it wasn't such a serious event, it would be quite comical, especially with the one cop on the other's shoulders falling off when he sees the rifle. Like that's sitcom level stuff.

It seems like the shooter didn't even have to walk through security since I don't think that building was within the cordoned off security zone. He even brought his own ladder! My understanding is that area was the responsibility of local police/sheriffs, not USSS. Let's be honest: American police are often extremely incompetent and even cowardly (think Uvalde).

climbed up on the most obvious sniper spot imaginable

This is so true. It's a raised spot with a clear view of the podium within a distance that is an easy shot even for terrible shooters like me. The only thing that saved Trump was that the shooter aimed for the head, and Trump moved his head at the luckiest moment possible.

Yet if you watch the video of USSS sniper, his focus is way farther off in the distance. Hence why we see him raise his eyes from the scope to acquire the target and then quickly readjust his rifle ~45 degrees downward to get the shot. So it appears that no one was actually watching that spot until it was too late.

 

[Dan Burt]

If it wasn't such a serious event, it would be quite comical, especially with the one cop on the other's shoulders falling off when he sees the rifle. Like that's sitcom level stuff.

It seems like the shooter didn't even have to walk through security since I don't think that building was within the cordoned off security zone. He even brought his own ladder! My understanding is that area was the responsibility of local police/sheriffs, not USSS. Let's be honest: American police are often extremely incompetent and even cowardly (think Uvalde).


This is so true. It's a raised spot with a clear view of the podium within a distance that is an easy shot even for terrible shooters like me. The only thing that saved Trump was that the shooter aimed for the head, and Trump moved his head at the luckiest moment possible.

Yet if you watch the video of USSS sniper, his focus is way farther off in the distance. Hence why we see him raise his eyes from the scope to acquire the target and then quickly readjust his rifle ~45 degrees downward to get the shot. So it appears that no one was actually watching that spot until it was too late.

If I'm not mistaken, the snipers on video you are talking about that raises his head off the scope to look, neither of them shot the shooter. The other sniper position is where that shot came from. I've read (zero proof) that the trees may have obstructed the sniper you are referring to from seeing the shooter. Again, I may be mistaken.

 

[Ann K]

Local police checked this roof within 2 minutes of being alerted to it. I do not know if that happened via "pointing and shouting", or if a spectator remembered they could use their smartphone to dial 911.

I also note from the various timelines that "he has a gun" came later.

If a call went through a 911 operator, that's another delay. If police checked the roof within two minutes without notifying the feds, that's another delay. Reports (veracity not known) say the police dropped down from the roof after a gun was pointed at them. Were the security people alerted to that immediately?

If we grant that the snipers were not permitted to fire until there was an actual threat, there still should have been enough warning for them to get Trump off the stage ...if the communications had been received in a timely fashion.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The Green arrow shot is a high miss. But is consistent with a shot aimed at Trump.

The Red Arrow shots were fired while Trump was down and hidden.

But if Trump was the primary target, why not continue to fire into the area and hope for a lucky shot?

These later shots are clearly not aimed at either sniper team. My preliminary notion is that these later shots are consistent with the shooter trying to cause random death.

My preliminary notion is that this may point to a psychological motivation that hasn't been well examined yet. This doesn't seem like a political assassination attempt. This seems more like the psychological motivation may be more in line with a mass shooting. Trump was a high value target, but not the only target.

Could these just be wild shots? Sure. But it's something to think about.

 

[yoshy]

If I'm not mistaken, the snipers on video you are talking about that raises his head off the scope to look, neither of them shot the shooter. The other sniper position is where that shot came from. I've read (zero proof) that the trees may have obstructed the sniper you are referring to from seeing the shooter. Again, I may be mistaken.

Thanks for the correction! I'll have to look up the current info to see who actually took out the shooter. Point still stands though that that sniper team was focused on a much farther distance.

 

[yoshy]

My preliminary notion is that this may point to a psychological motivation that hasn't been well examined yet. This doesn't seem like a political assassination attempt. This seems more likes a mass shooting motivation. Trump was a high value target, but not the only target.

Starting to think this as well. One of the speculative reasons I posted above was "Just wanted to be famous. Had the opportunity to go after Trump instead of the sadly frequent school shooting". The scenario I am imagining is we have a bullied white male (similar profile to other mass shootings) who was planning a mass shooting somewhere (perhaps a school as is common ), but then he sees that Trump happens to have a rally coming up in his home town. What better way to get that perverse fame he wanted by going after a former President and presumptive nominee?

(Again, speculation ^.)

 

[Ann K]

These later shots are clearly not aimed at either sniper team. My preliminary notion is that these later shots are consistent with the shooter trying to cause random death.

My preliminary notion is that this may point to a psychological motivation that hasn't been well examined yet. This doesn't seem like a political assassination attempt. This seems more likes a mass shooting motivation. Trump was a high value target, but not the only target.

We have received no further information about his car being filled with explosives, where the car was parked, or the detonator that was photographed beside his body on the rooftop. All that has been crowded off the news by the events surrounding the shooting itself, but they point in the direction of your preliminary notion.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Question. Do I have the Red arrows in the right place? Correct part of the correct grandstand?

Let's check.

 

[Dan Burt]

Question. Do I have the Red arrows in the right place? Correct part of the correct grandstand?

Let's check.

I think the victim killed was in direct line of fire between shooter and Trump. So he was near top left of left grandstand.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

You may be right.

These are the landmarks I have so far.

 

[yoshy]

Question. Do I have the Red arrows in the right place? Correct part of the correct grandstand?

Let's check.

I haven't watched this myself but this video might be helpful for you.

 

[Giddierone]

It would appear from all the miscellaneous reports that the principle culprit (apart from the shooter himself) was communication

Yes, and perhaps local police not knowing the bounds of their responsibility to take action when the event was so heavily patrolled by, presumably higher ranking, secret service agents.

He even brought his own ladder!

I'd assumed that was put there by the police to get to the roof themselves. In that other video you can see how they struggled - Keystone Cops-style - to get over some temporary chainlink fencing.

How the shooter was able to pick that one spot, and to reach that one spot to lay prone is baffling.

This doesn't seem like a political assassination attempt. This seems more like the psychological motivation may be more in line with a mass shooting.

It seems exactly like a political assassination attempt. His position was precise and shots that injured others were all in the direct line of his primary target.

 

[Dan Burt]

My extremely crude diagram. I only took art class to sit next to Lisa Jenner the cute redhead in the neighborhood, please excuse how amateur it is.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This section of this video clears it up. It's the upper left corner of the left grandstand.


Edit: It's been blocked. You can see the section of the video I'm talking about at 0:55