Trump Shot at Rally

[deirdre]

t's currently unclear (to me) whether someone was actually at a window overlooking that roof, or should have been.

i watched the congressional hearing with the State Police, Colonel Paris.

They were stationed at the window which overlooked where Crooks ended up. They both left that window to "go look for" Crooks. Congressmen went to Butler and took pictures from that window which were presented at the hearing.

If one of the men stayed in that window Crooks would have been in sight. (just a few feet away really...although its also possible Crooks only chose that particular location 'last minute' because noone was in the window. < that last bit is my add on, not speculation offered at the hearing)

 

[Greene]

unlikely i stand in target trench under 223 5.56mm and larger bullets passing less than 3 feet overhead at my rifle range. The sonic bang is loud but not shock wave harmful, its just a crack much like a horse whip but less loud than a whip crack.. Sure a shot passing right next to ear be painfull to ear drum & may cause temporary ringing,, have some one clap hands right next to your ear as good example

Agreed. I was going to mention pulling buts

The closest I've had a round zip by my ear was about a foot. 7.62x39 rather than 5.56. Loud but not enough to cause damage.

 

[jimmyslippin]

i watched the congressional hearing with the State Police, Colonel Paris.

They were stationed at the window which overlooked where Crooks ended up. They both left that window to "go look for" Crooks. Congressmen went to Butler and took pictures from that window which were presented at the hearing.

Yeah, this was all mentioned in Greene's post (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/trump-shot-at-rally.13550/post-320146).

If one of the men stayed in that window Crooks would have been in sight. (just a few feet away really...although its also possible Crooks only chose that particular location 'last minute' because noone was in the window. < that last bit is my add on, not speculation offered at the hearing)

The issue is that the Butler County DA is saying that one of the men stayed at their post and is disputing Paris' version of events.

Officials are providing contradictory information.

 

[deirdre]

Yeah, this was all mentioned in Greene's post (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/trump-shot-at-rally.13550/post-320146).

i know but that was a news article. if you can find first hand information (listen to Paris' words coming out of his own mouth) that is preferable to trusting me or CNN.

for ex: i didnt mention that Paris said a few times they still hadnt received the Secret Service Operational Plan (which is to me suspicious as hell). so really we have no idea if the ESU officers were even officially SUPPOSED to be stationed in those windows or if they maybe just decided the Secret Service plan was stupid and they took it upon themselves to station in the window.

Unfortunately congress people are just people and kinda suck at questioning. and the 5 minute limit screws up getting all the data we could have from Paris if one focused person was asking him questions for 30 minutes.

The issue is that the Butler County DA is saying that one of the men stayed at their post and is disputing Paris' version of events.

i know and the only solution is to wait until the Investigation Report comes out.

Paris did say he has this information from "briefings". I see no reason to think these briefings did not include written statemnts nd interviews of the two esu officers in question.
Based on Sandy Hook which i paid attention to... after the event every officer (unless wounded etc) makes a written statement before going home that night. Officers in prime roles are interviewed the next day and then interviewed a few more times (in the days or weeks following).
The hearing was 9 days after the shooting. Based on Sandy Hook it stands to reason that the officers in those 'important roles' -the 2 esu etc- would have at least one written statement, probably 2 and at least one interview at the point of the hearing.
I personally trust Paris' account because if the 2 esu officers said they left to go search for Crooks, then they probably left to go search for Crooks.

Paris didnt say "absolute" or anything but that is normal because State Police investigating a scene (based on Sandy Hook) like to triple dot their i's and quadruple cross their t's on every little thing. (like memory of officers etc).

 

[deirdre]

Paris did say he has this information from "briefings". I see no reason to think these briefings did not include written statemnts nd interviews of the two esu officers in question.

dawned on me i could use word search on the videos. so yea regarding whether the 2 officers left the windows to search for Crooks he says
37:19 and that's based on interviews we've conducted. and i want to be very clear i dont want to establish a timeline minute by minute because we dont have that.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?53725...s-assassination-attempt-fmr-pres-trump-part-2

 

[jimmyslippin]

i know but that was a news article. if you can find first hand information (listen to Paris' words coming out of his own mouth) that is preferable to trusting me or CNN.

for ex: i didnt mention that Paris said a few times they still hadnt received the Secret Service Operational Plan (which is to me suspicious as hell).

I listened to the same hearing you did.

Paris was asked when he had made the request for the Secret Service Operational Plan he couldn't answer the question. Why's that? For all I know he only requested it immediately prior to the hearing to ensure all his ducks were in a row and the Secret Service hadn't had the opportunity to respond to that request.

so really we have no idea if the ESU officers were even officially SUPPOSED to be stationed in those windows or if they maybe just decided the Secret Service plan was stupid and they took it upon themselves to station in the window.

Yes, we don't know if the SSOP provided any specific advice at all to local law enforcement when it came to how the AGR Building should have been secured.

When Paris was specifically asked if state or local law enforcement had raised any issues about the security plan with regard to the AGR Building, when he was finally directed to answer the question after bloviating for quite a while his only response was that the Secret Service had advised local law enforcement that they were responsible for securing the building. That's a non-answer to the specific question he was asked.

i know and the only solution is to wait until the Investigation Report comes out.

Correct. It is the only solution when it comes to conflicting information being given by different authorities that have skin in the game.

Paris did say he has this information from "briefings". I see no reason to think these briefings did not include written statemnts nd interviews of the two esu officers in question.
Based on Sandy Hook which i paid attention to... after the event every officer (unless wounded etc) makes a written statement before going home that night. Officers in prime roles are interviewed the next day and then interviewed a few more times (in the days or weeks following).
The hearing was 9 days after the shooting. Based on Sandy Hook it stands to reason that the officers in those 'important roles' -the 2 esu etc- would have at least one written statement, probably 2 and at least one interview at the point of the hearing.
I personally trust Paris' account because if the 2 esu officers said they left to go search for Crooks, then they probably left to go search for Crooks.

Paris didnt say "absolute" or anything but that is normal because State Police investigating a scene (based on Sandy Hook) like to triple dot their i's and quadruple cross their t's on every little thing. (like memory of officers etc).

Ok, but you're still making assumptions here based on an unrelated case when choosing to believe the state official over the local official when they offer conflicting versions of events.

Remember, what is at issue here is whether or not anyone positioned in that building should have been able to see Crooks at the moment he climbed onto the roof.

So in that regard, I would like to direct you to something else Paris said when asked about the whereabouts of officers:

"I want to be very clear that I don't want to establish a timeline minute by minute because we don't have that yet."

Paris doesn't know who was where and when.

Also:

Q: Had ESU maintained position in that window overlooking the roof isn't it true they would have had a clean shot at Mr Crooks as he was ascending the roof to his shooting position?

Paris: I'm not prepared to say that because I don't know the exact timeline of events.

Q: But it's your understanding though that they were no longer in that room where they had been previously overlooking the building at the time he was ascending the roof, is that correct?

Paris: Could you repeat that question?

Q: That the ESU officers were no longer in that room where they could look out the window and oversee the roof as that video shows.

Paris: I believe they were actively searching along with other municipal officers for Mr. Crooks.

First Paris cannot answer the question because he admits, again, that he doesn't have a timeline of events. Then he provides a non-specific answer to the followup question. Were they no longer in the room or not? Which room? They could have continued to actively search for Crooks by looking out a window. Where were they?

Paris doesn't know.

 

[jimmyslippin]

dawned on me i could use word search on the videos. so yea regarding whether the 2 officers left the windows to search for Crooks he says
37:19 and that's based on interviews we've conducted. and i want to be very clear i dont want to establish a timeline minute by minute because we dont have that.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?53725...s-assassination-attempt-fmr-pres-trump-part-2

Listen more closely. Paris isn't even sure which window they were at.

That's the danger of hauling these guys into congress and demanding answers before any real investigation has been completed. They don't have the full details, it leads to conflicting information and feeds conspiracy theorists who immediately cry "but the official story said..."

 

[deirdre]

Paris was asked when he had made the request for the Secret Service Operational Plan he couldn't answer the question. Why's that? For all I know he only requested it immediately prior to the hearing to ensure all his ducks were in a row and the Secret Service hadn't had the opportunity to respond to that request.

well he said in "the earlier part of the investigation". just saying.

when did you request that?
24:38 I'd have to go back and check. in the uh earlier part of the investigation that was just something we ask for as a matter of course.

Ok, but you're still making assumptions here based on an unrelated case when choosing to believe the state official over the local official when they offer conflicting versions of events.

well technically the discrepancy is minutia in my opinion.

and DID Paris say they left the building? the CNN article doesnt even quote Paris saying that. your quotes dont quote Paris saying that. I actually dont recall him saying they went outside. (i could be wrong). "left their posts and were actively searching" could yea mean they were looking out windows on the other side of the building.

They could have continued to actively search for Crooks by looking out a window. Where were they?

the DA doesnt say the one officer in was looking out window that faced the roof. even if 1 officer was "in the building" at all times (despite the state police having access to written statements and interviews) ..it's an irrelevant point of contention because noone was watching the roof or they would have shot Crooks. no?

Listen more closely. Paris isn't even sure which window they were at.

what does his professionalism not to say things they haven't verified 100% yet through every stone turned over, have to do with him saying the information is from interviews?

That's the danger of hauling these guys into congress and demanding answers before any real investigation has been completed. They don't have the full details, it leads to conflicting information and feeds conspiracy theorists who immediately cry "but the official story said..."

i agree. and i personally think Paris would agree with you too.

on the other hand investigations tend to be a bit TOO thorough before they release any official information, which believe you me results in feeding conspiracy theories.
(to be fair any major event is gonna have conspiracy theories no matter what. it's just the nature of humanity exacerbated by the internet.)

 

[jimmyslippin]

well he said in "the earlier part of the investigation". just saying.

when did you request that?
24:38 I'd have to go back and check. in the uh earlier part of the investigation that was just something we ask for as a matter of course.

Is he guessing? Does he actually know? The investigation is still ongoing, was yesterday the earlier part of the investigation?

well technically the discrepancy is minutia in my opinion.

and DID Paris say they left the building? the CNN article doesnt even quote Paris saying that. your quotes dont quote Paris saying that. I actually dont recall him saying they went outside. (i could be wrong). "left their posts and were actively searching" could yea mean they were looking out windows on the other side of the building.

If it was minutia then why did the DA take issue with it?

Paris doesn't even know what their posts were. He hasn't seen the SSOP, remember?

the DA doesnt say the one officer in was looking out window that faced the roof. even if 1 officer was "in the building" at all times (despite the state police having access to written statements and interviews) ..it's an irrelevant point of contention because noone was watching the roof or they would have shot Crooks. no?

I have no idea, and neither do you.

The entire point of this discussion has been whether or not the local law enforcement snipers should have been able to see Crooks from their posts. However, just from listening to Paris and the DA, it's not ever clear where their posts actually were. Paris certainly has no idea despite apparently being aware of all these written statements and interviews, and he hasn't seen the SSOP, remember? The local DA says the entire building was their post.

what does his professionalism not to say things they haven't verified 100% yet through every stone turned over, have to do with him saying the information is from interviews?

Interviews with who? The investigation is still ongoing. Did he say who interviews had already been conducted with, or are you just assuming that interviews with everyone on the scene have already been concluded and Paris has full knowledge of them?

What did you make of the fact that Paris claims the officer being boosted up to the roof and seeing the shooter with a gun happened 2 1/2 to 3 meetings before the shooting commenced? But then couldn't answer questions about whether or not this information was relayed to the Secret Service?

Those people were interviewed, right?

i agree. and i personally think Paris would agree with you too.

on the other hand investigations tend to be a bit TOO thorough before they release any official information, which believe you me results in feeding conspiracy theories.
(to be fair any major event is gonna have conspiracy theories no matter what. it's just the nature of humanity exacerbated by the internet.)

I'd rather they took their time.

I'm not sure why Paris isn't facing the same ire that Cheatle did for her evasiveness. His answers were mostly deflections to the Secret Service and long bloviations that were ultimately non-responsive to the question that was asked of him. I didn't find any of the information he gave to be reliable.

 

[deirdre]

Paris doesn't even know what their posts were. He hasn't seen the SSOP, remember?

what does that have to do with my question..DID Paris ever say they left the building?

 

[deirdre]

What did you make of the fact that Paris claims the officer being boosted up to the roof and seeing the shooter with a gun happened 2 1/2 to 3 meetings before the shooting commenced?

your own cnn article notes that he clarified that misunderstanding. its the very first minutes of Part 3 on c-span. from the gun being leveled at the municipal officer to the first gunshots was seconds ..minutes he meant that crooks was on the roof.


youre certainly welcome to your own opinion, and i am not trying to defend police vs secret service etc (anyone is capable of messing up). I, and apparently most congressmen who thanked him, see the obvious difference between him doing his best to be helpful and accurate about an ONGOING investigation (that shouldnt even be discussed at this point) and Cheatles testimony. But it's cool if you see soemthing different.

The entire point of this discussion has been whether or not the local law enforcement snipers should have been able to see Crooks from their posts

In this thread? oh. then i apologize for not keeping up, there were alot of post i only skimmed or skipped over because i dont care what bullets went where or whether shrapnel or the whole bullet nicked Trump's ear etc, etc.

yea we dont know where they were. (but obviously they could not see Crooks or they would have shot him )

 

[Mendel]

So, after all that back-and-forth, I get the impression that the CNN summary pretty much got the gist of it.

 

[jimmyslippin]

what does that have to do with my question..DID Paris ever say they left the building?

In response to Dan Bishop's question about whether they had left their post, Paris responds in the affirmative that they had both left their post to investigate the area Crooks had just been seen. He does not specifically say whether that involved leaving the building or not. Paris also stated that he did not know which window they were actually posted at.

Goldinger, on the other hand, suggested one of them had, in fact, left the building, but counters Paris by saying the entire building was their post and not a specific location within it.

So in trying to answer the question as to whether or not the local law enforcement guys should have seen Crooks on the roof, neither Paris or Goldinger are providing any reliable information as to where the officers were, and when they were there.

 

[jimmyslippin]

In this thread? oh. then i apologize for not keeping up, there were alot of post i only skimmed or skipped over because i dont care what bullets went where or whether shrapnel or the whole bullet nicked Trump's ear etc, etc.

yea we dont know where they were. (but obviously they could not see Crooks or they would have shot him )

Fair enough, I understand the confusion.

 

[deirdre]

but counters Paris by saying the entire building was their post and not a specific location within it.

yea i thought that was the point of discussion, to see if anyone was guarding the roof.

 

[deirdre]

@Z.W. Wolf et al:
Monday morning (tomorrow) on GMA (Good Morning AMerica) members of the beaver county swat who were on the ground that day will be giving an exclusive interview.

 

[deirdre]

they are on World News Tonight too. this must be one of the ESU guys in the AGR building as abc voice over is saying he took the photos.

Source: https://youtu.be/3VEOv8fWSg4?t=403

 

[Duke]

At 4:26 p.m. -- nearly two hours before the shooting began -- a sniper leaving the area where local SWAT members assembled saw Crooks "sitting to the direct right on a picnic table about 50 yards from the exit," the text message said.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/local-swat-snipers-trump-rally-gunman-2-hours/story?id=112356606

According to the article, a local SWAT counter-sniper called Crooks to the attention of his fellow officers at 4:26 via a text. That means at least an hour and forty-five minutes between that initial text and the first shot fired. That's the earliest in the assassination attempt timeline I've seen claiming Crooks was noticed by law enforcement.

"We were supposed to get a face-to-face briefing with the Secret Service members whenever they arrived, and that never happened," said Jason Woods, lead sharpshooter on the SWAT team in Beaver County, Pennsylvania.

"So I think that was probably a pivotal point, where I started thinking things were wrong because it never happened," Woods said. "We had no communication."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/local-swat-snipers-trump-rally-gunman-2-hours/story?id=112356606

No in-brief and no communication between local law enforcement and the USSS protection detail?

 

[deirdre]

the GMA interview. there really isnt much of an interview. or additional information given other than what Duke noted. video 4:20 long, swat starts about 30 secs in.

Source: https://youtu.be/H6y350P_erk?t=29

 

[Alexandria Nick]

No in-brief and no communication between local law enforcement and the USSS protection detail?

I will in no way be surprised if the dots basically connect to say that the USSS had a very low opinion of what they perceived as a bunch of yokel police out in the sticks and, surprise, their arrogance burned them.

 

[FatPhil]

I will in no way be surprised if the dots basically connect to say that the USSS had a very low opinion of what they perceived as a bunch of yokel police out in the sticks and, surprise, their arrogance burned them.

Have they really never seen /Die Hard/?

However, it could be even worse - am I right in concluding that there were three entirely independent forces active, the Secret Service, a local SWAT team, and the local police force, none of which had direct lines of communication between each other?

 

[deirdre]

am I right in concluding that there were three entirely independent forces active, the Secret Service, a local SWAT team, and the local police force, none of which had direct lines of communication between each other?

https://www.c-span.org/video/?53725...s-assassination-attempt-fmr-pres-trump-part-2
34:00
"Butler ESU ("a team comprised of multiple agencies that pool resources on a county or several county basis" "they are trained in swat tactics"


44:45 (the question of which agencies was asked:

• Secret service
• Pennsylvania State Police
• Butler ESU
• Butler county sheriff
• Pittsburgh city police (assets to motorcade)
• (paris says: i believe)Allegheny county police

the last 3 "sound" like they were under State Police 'oversight' ?

Gimenz: you [state police] were in the incident command center with the Secret Service. were all the other agencies represented in the incident command center?

Paris: i believe that some of those agencies were represented but i cant definitively tell you.

GImenz: was Butler ESU in that command center?

Paris: i was told that at one point there was a rep in there, how long and over what period i'm not sure. i'm aware of 3 ...(he's then cut off)


46:55 was that information (the photos and suspicion) relayed to Secret service?

Paris: i believe that it was.
-------------------------------------------
54:44 Paris: i do know Butler county set up a command post in a seperate building to SS command post. (he also notes here that what agencies were in what command posts and when is not currently part of the investigation as they are at this point focused on the homicide, attempted homicides and officer involved shooting.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

1:27:55 who did they send the picture to
Paris: i only know from interviews..a member of the State Police inside the [Secret Service] command post received that information. telephonically and by text. Relayed it to the SS and then was given a number to follow up on.

How did they relay it to the Secret Service?
Paris: i belive that they verbally turned and said in the command post 'this is information i just received' and then in follow up to that as directed -from the interview that i was briefed on- that was forwarded by text as requested by the SS.

 

[FatPhil]

Ah, that's why it worked as well as QWOP.

 

[deirdre]

I will in no way be surprised if the dots basically connect to say that the USSS had a very low opinion of what they perceived as a bunch of yokel police out in the sticks and, surprise, their arrogance burned them.

current senate hearing.. Secret service Rowe, is 100% blaming locals.

"A failure of imagination. A failure to imagine the locals (yes he used that word) wouldnt do their job"

 

[FatPhil]

current senate hearing.. Secret service Rowe, is 100% blaming locals.

"A failure of imagination. A failure to imagine the locals (yes he used that word) wouldnt do their job"

Ahh, gotta love stereotypes! (but which one ;-) ?)

At least he's not pretending that the SS themselves couldn't have made any errors:

Facing questions from lawmakers, Rowe vows that Secret Service agents will "be held accountable" if they are found to have committed "policy violations" before and during the rally in Butler.

"They will be held to our table of penalties," Rowe says. "Which will include up to termination."

-- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c7280jzy33nt - live page, so comment, timestamped 15:47, may drop off into continuation pages

 

[FatPhil]

Aside: These polling results are more positive than I would have expected

How confident are you that the Secret Service can protect presidential candidates from harm?
Very confident 20%
Somewhat confident 45%
Not very confident 17%
Not at all confident 7%
Not sure 11%

-- https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/07/14/f66da/3

The evidence we have is that the system has fatal flaws, and whilst of course they'll now try to address them, that doesn't mean that they will in the future deliver what is expected of them. The "very" levels of confidence seem misplaced, IMHO.

 

[deirdre]

At least he's not pretending that the SS themselves couldn't have made any errors:

he admitted it is ultimately the Secret Services fault (because they trusted th elocals would do their job. He;s coming off as overly upset that his agents are getting bad press. he provided this photo of where teh sighter was supposed to be..according to him.. but hasnt produced the plan yet. he says "the locals had a plan". yellow arrow is where the shooter on roof was

 

[deirdre]

that doesn't mean that they will in the future deliver what is expected of them.

actually im surprised more people werent picked off over the years. so they must be doing something right most of the time. Nothing is 100% safe.

 

[Duke]

he admitted it is ultimately the Secret Services fault (because they trusted th elocals would do their job. He;s coming off as overly upset that his agents are getting bad press. he provided this photo of where teh sighter was supposed to be..according to him.. but hasnt produced the plan yet. he says "the locals had a plan". yellow arrow is where the shooter on roof was
View attachment 70569

You can delegate authority, but not responsibility.

 

[Mendel]

However, it could be even worse - am I right in concluding that there were three entirely independent forces active, the Secret Service, a local SWAT team, and the local police force, none of which had direct lines of communication between each other?

the local SWAT team had information about the suspect, I believe? so they'd be sharing some communications with their local force.

The question is, by which route would the information "local police are investigating a suspect on a rooftop" have reached the USSS?

 

[Greene]

the local SWAT team had information about the suspect, I believe? so they'd be sharing some communications with their local force.

The question is, by which route would the information "local police are investigating a suspect on a rooftop" have reached the USSS?

A couple of articles that may help shed some light (bold mine)...

"It is my understanding those personnel were not aware that the assailant had a firearm until they heard gunshots," he said. "Prior to that, they were operating with the knowledge that local law enforcement was working on issue of a suspicious individual prior to the shots being fired."

In dramatic fashion, he also displayed pictures of where the local sniper team was supposed to be posted and showed images of his agents re-enacting the shooter's position.

Rowe also said if they had "more information" about the 30 seconds between finding out the shooter had a gun on the roof and him opening fire, they would've been able to address it "more quickly."

"It appears that that information was stuck or siloed in that state local channel," Rowe said.

Rowe said that while it was great there was a texting chain, more needs to go "over the net," meaning, there needs to be more radio communication, which apparently there was a lack of during July 13.

Rowe was pressed on reports that 20 minutes passed between the time Secret Service snipers first spotted the gunman on a rooftop and the time shots were fired at the former president. Rowe said it was the "first" he was hearing of that and to his knowledge it was "incorrect."

Abbate also testified about the timeline, saying approximately 25 minutes prior to the shooting, the Secret Service command post was notified of a suspicious person.

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/acting-secret-service-director-testify-senate-details-trump/story?id=112384807

Text messages released and radio chatter detailed Monday show that law enforcement officers lost sight of Donald Trump's would-be assassin, Thomas Matthew Crooks, and further illustrate the confused communications around tracking him at the July 13 rally.

According to documents released by Sen. Chuck Grassley's office, law enforcement officers knew of and raised the shooter's presence at the rally more than 90 minutes before he climbed onto a roof and fired eight rounds at Trump.

At 5:14 p.m., an officer took photos of Crooks sitting outside. Twenty minutes later he sent those images to a group chat, the texts show.

"Kid learning around building we are in," one text reads. "I did see him with a range finder looking towards stage. FYI. If you wanna notify SS snipers to look out. I lost sight of him."

Messages show that 10 minutes later, an officer sends the images to a second group chat and tells the other members to forward it: "if you wanna send this to whoever at command." Six minutes later, at 5:51 p.m., someone responds: "Sent."

One of the members of that same group chat also said they had lost track of where Crooks had gone just 15 minutes before the shooting.

"They are asking for a direction of travel," one person wrote at 5:59 p.m., referring to the command center.

Someone responded a minute later: "Not sure. He was up against the building. If I had to guess towards the back. Away from the event."

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/29/politics/trump-shooting-text-messages/index.html

 

[Mendel]

A couple of articles that may help shed some light (bold mine)...

"They are asking for a direction of travel," one person wrote at 5:59 p.m., referring to the command center.

Someone responded a minute later: "Not sure. He was up against the building. If I had to guess towards the back. Away from the event."

The shots were fired at 6:11.

So, at that point, there was a suspect, who had used a rangefinder, with a backpack that had not been searched. Nobody anticipated Crooks to be able to climb the roof, and the text messages do not convey that—the local police did not know.

The important part is, what happens when the cops are notified that there's a suspect on the roof, because that's when the suspect becomes a potential threat. We don't know that.

From the USSS perspective at that point, the local police were doing their job.

 

[Horsehockey]

To the extent that both local and federal law-enforcement were carrying cell phones on their bodies, would it be possible to analyze the GPS data available on each of those phones to establish individual location and times? Anyone out there know?

 

[Mendel]

To the extent that both local and federal law-enforcement were carrying cell phones on their bodies, would it be possible to analyze the GPS data available on each of those phones to establish individual location and times? Anyone out there know?

The investigation is going to establish that via witness statements, and possibly videos.

Cell phone data is not exact enough to establish positions.
GPS data needs to be logged somewhere; typically, it's not.

 

[Hevach]

When it is logged it's generally within the shady realms of online data storage and sharing.

For the private citizen this a real privacy concern but on the scale of Google pushing you targeted ads it doesn't seem like it should know to target.

But for government it becomes a whole different concern. The agencies involved (especially FBI and Secret Service) almost certainly have rules in place on this already. If they don't then they really should.

 

[FatPhil]

The investigation is going to establish that via witness statements, and possibly videos.

Cell phone data is not exact enough to establish positions.
GPS data needs to be logged somewhere; typically, it's not.

GPS is practically irrelevant. The base stations have more data than you can possibly imagine. I worked for these guys in the mid-90s, and I know what was possible back then: https://impact.ref.ac.uk/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?Id=14594

Post 1993, these techniques were developed further by the group and applied to mobile phones [1]. These systems needed to use signals received simultaneously by the mobile receiver, whose position was to be determined, and a second receiver (location measurement unit: LMU) whose position was known. A crucial development by Duffett-Smith, code-named `Matrix' [2] and `Virtual LMU' [3], did away with the need for the LMU, opening the way for moving mobile phones to track themselves independently.

Anything that a phone can do to locate itself, base stations that can share data (and given that they're operated by the same company, that's a gimme) can do too.

With great chagrin, I can confirm that "go have a drive in the countryside for the afternoon to collect data" is a nice way to earn a wage. Yeah, it wasn't me who had that job.

 

[jimmyslippin]

The bodycam video from the officer that was lifted up to the roof was released a few days ago.

The raw footage starts at 3:38.



A few notes of interest from the video:

3:41 Officer is alerted via police radio that "someone's on the roof."

6:15 Officer is lifted up to the rooftop and sights the shooter holding a gun.

6:51 First shots are fired.

36 seconds pass from the time the shooter was spotted with a rifle to the moment the first shots were fired. It is not clear if the officer attempted to notify others over the radio as the audio source from this portion of the bodycam video seems to be patrol car. After seeing the shooter the officer runs around to the other side of the building to look at the roof, then once the shooting starts he runs to his car to get a firearm.

The video shows that the ladder seen in aerial footage in the enclave between buildings was not placed there by the shooter, and seems to have been placed there well after the shooting took place.

At one point a black extendable ladder is brought to the scene but one of the officers has no idea how to extend it, so he just places it against the building. A secret service guy arrives on the scene, looks at the ladder for a little while, grabs it and then extends it so he can climb to the roof. After seeing this happen, the same officer who couldn't figure out how to extend the ladder then walks up to a conversation another officer is having inside the building with the medic and another officer that had just arrived, where it is mentioned they are waiting for ladders to be brought onto the scene. The officer doesn't say a word about the one he just saw the secret service guy climb up. Instead, one of the officers that had just arrived walks outside, sees the ladder against the building and asks if he can use it. Officer that couldn't figure out how to extend it gives permission.

The same officer that can't figure out how extendible ladders work spends a whole lot of time complaining about how he supposedly told the secret service to place agents at the AGR building, while seemingly excusing his own guys from doing anything because they were inside the building where they were apparently useless.

 

[Mendel]

then once the shooting starts he runs to his car to get a firearm.

the officer is carrying a handgun in his holster. he's running for his rifle.
(I still think he should've popped a shot in the air as soon as he had seen the guy with the gun, to alert the sniper teams and get Trump protected asap.)

Is there a frame where we can see the shooter, or is the camera pointed too far down?

 

[jimmyslippin]

the officer is carrying a handgun in his holster. he's running for his rifle.
(I still think he should've popped a shot in the air as soon as he had seen the guy with the gun, to alert the sniper teams and get Trump protected asap.)

Watch the video from the moment he drops to the ground until he runs to his patrol vehicle to get his rifle.

Both of his hands are empty.

It seems strange to me that someone supposedly just pointed a firearm at him and all indications are that he didn't draw his own firearm until the shooting started.

Is there a frame where we can see the shooter, or is the camera pointed too far down?

Nah, you can't see the shooter. I think he had his head turned 90 degrees to his left at the moment he spots him while his bodycam is pointing the same direction as his torso.

This seems to be the moment...

 

[Matt33]

Is there a frame where we can see the shooter, or is the camera pointed too far down?

No frame with the shooter. You can skip frame by frame in YouTube Videos by pressing period for next frame or comma for last frame.