[Trump Shooting] Suspect was registered as Republican voter, state records show
abcnews.go.com
Thomas Matthew Crooks, the suspectin Saturday’s shooting, was registered as a Republican voter, according to Pennsylvania records.
Already the republicans are dismissing his voter registration as meaningless. Here comes the “mental illness” angle.
Edit: apparently it’s not uncommon to register with the party you oppose in PA. This is going to be a fun ride.
You are viewing a single comment
He definitely could be Republican and I would not dismiss it at all. However, in the state of Pennsylvania it's common to register for the party primaries of the opposing party whose candidate is someone you're not in favor of and vote for someone else. It should be clear this does not mean he's not a Republican or imply that he might be a Democrat. It's only to add some context.
Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Primary_elections_in_Pennsylvania
I wouldn’t say it’s common, that’s misleading. some people do it, probably, but I’ve lived in PA for 2 decades and have never met anyone who has claimed to do so nor have I seen any actual statistics on the matter
My older sister has been doing it since the 80s. I don't think there's very many of them because assholes keep winning the Republican primaries
That's fair, you're right as I haven't seen statistics either. While I don't do it myself, I've seen many speak about doing this over the years though I've only lived in PA for a little over a decade.
Edit: autocorrect
He also has donated to Democratic cause three years ago. Might not mean anything but we'll see if they better figure out this guy.
.. it would been a whole lot easier if he hadn't been shot dead.
If law enforcement sees a guy on a rooftop with a gun threatening a crowd of people, though, that's an acceptable situation for "shoot first, ask questions later". That shot that killed the guy probably saved other lives.
Non-lethal shots are a possibility.
They also allow people to keep shooting.
That is some Hollywood shit, in real life you shoot until the threat is neutralized, it could have been another las vegas
Yes, one of the rules of gun safety is that you don't point your gun at anything you don't intend to kill.
They usually don't. See: Europe.
Ok, well you feel free to try and wound someone in that situation if you’re ever in it, hopefully no one else dies because of it.
I wouldn't have a gun, so nah.
There you go then
No one in the history of actual combat shooting is taught to take non lethal shots. Ever.
Idk what your talking about. You shoot the gun out of the hand. Then you shoot the hat off for intimidation and the somewhere nearby you shoot the rope of someone getting hanged to free them to kinda balance things out. This is all common sense.
I cannot argue with your rootin' tootin' shootin' logic.
You’re right, let’s go get some spaghetti!
What do you mean with combat shooting? Because here in Finland police is trained to (and required by law) to try to minimize the damage and if possible, to stop someone without killing them, usually by shooting at the legs etc. But that's more for knife fielding attacker and other situation where such shots are more possible and not when the cops or others are being shot at
I mean US military and police training.
Ah, then I can believe that such measures aren't taught or used
This isn't the military. You said no one, which is not true.
Combat shooting? It's not a warzone. Come to Europe, mate.
There was an era where some cops were trained to shoot at limbs but even cops knew to ignore that shit.
It's the normal procedure here in Finland to try to take someone down with shooting in the legs or somewhere else that they might survive from. Not the case if they start shooting of course, it's more for situation where they're wielding a knife and coming for the cop or someone else
Right, and that's nonsense, people suck at aiming when they're scared.
Seems to work here. They have to go through a lot of training.
Just as well it's not just "people", it's the trained and armed police. Same happens in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby
Non-lethal shots are a fantasy.
You have plenty of blood vessels in your limbs and it is very easy to bleed out via the femoral artery or whatever else. This is literally why tourniquets exist
Assuming it is an actual threat and not a black kid with a toy train: Shoot to kill and then, when it is safe, have EMTs try to keep them alive.
Not in the real world they're not.
If you're standing 20 feet in front of the guy, yes. If your only shot is across a field from one rooftop to another, you have much less control over where the bullet hits.
At those distances (200-300 meters going by the map i saw) with professional shooters they can put multiple rounds inside of a spot the size of a dime. That isn’t the point though, you shoot to kill in those situations. Non lethal shots are hollywood shit.
Or what happens in places outside of the US.
Is that what happened?
They're less lethal, not non lethal, and they're frequently used as an excuse to escalate violence needlessly. I'm very critical of the use of their use of force and would generally prefer police to be unarmed, but this is not a situation where I have any complaints. That threat needed to be neutralized as quickly and effectively as possible. Overwhelming force was the best way to do that.
Was overwhelming force used? It sounded like one person going up a ladder and retreating, before the guy got shot(s) away.
Dunno how they would've done that, wasn't he shot from another roof by a sniper while he was still posing an active threat? That's the image I got from some articles