WTF? This is most likely scare tactics towards the Harris campaign, which means it's terrorism. And they are examining it as a property crime?
Also she's still VP! It should be treated as treason because there is a chance she could have been there.
I mean, from a legal standpoint, sure.
But realistically, given that she's currently the sitting vice president, the odds of her actually being in the campaign office versus being in the White House or at a meeting somewhere on on a jet or giving a speech or elsewhere on the campaign trail are, including many decimal places, zero.
I also don't expect anyone dumb enough to actually try shooting at the campaign office to know that, though.
That also doesn't preclude anyone else from being in the office.
Oh man if this happened to a building being used by the fat peice of shit Trump, it'd be listed as him being shot at in another assassination attempt!
dude it's arizona. i give it 75/25 that whoever's "investigating" were the ones who did it
Some of those that work forces...
save it for tough talk in homeroom, kids.
Something something work forces
Something something burn crosses....
80/20 take it or leave it
Yeah, seems like after people shot at trump twice, shooting politicians is all the rage again.
I hope the secret service gets its act together
I feel it's's almost certainly retaliation for perceived wrongs. What it accomplishes will depend on the person. Some will see it as scare tactics, others as a warning, more as stupidity, and others besides.
Let's just hope it's not an early herald of more.
I understand I might not be asking the right person but what's the difference between terrorism and a warning when it involves deadly force?
Intent, mostly. Other than that, not much. Because we can only assume why, even if it's easy enough to come up with answers, it's best to not leap to conclusions. I might be missing info though .
I guess I don't see the difference. If you are warning someone with a gun, the warning is that they willl use the gun. Legally that might not always be "terrorism" but the effect is the same so seems like we call it what it is.
Last I checked, brandishing a weapon is not any more legal, nor is negligent discharge of a weapon.
WTF? This is most likely scare tactics towards the Harris campaign, which means it's terrorism. And they are examining it as a property crime?
Also she's still VP! It should be treated as treason because there is a chance she could have been there.
I mean, from a legal standpoint, sure.
But realistically, given that she's currently the sitting vice president, the odds of her actually being in the campaign office versus being in the White House or at a meeting somewhere on on a jet or giving a speech or elsewhere on the campaign trail are, including many decimal places, zero.
I also don't expect anyone dumb enough to actually try shooting at the campaign office to know that, though.
That also doesn't preclude anyone else from being in the office.
Oh man if this happened to a building being used by the fat peice of shit Trump, it'd be listed as him being shot at in another assassination attempt!
dude it's arizona. i give it 75/25 that whoever's "investigating" were the ones who did it
Some of those that work forces...
save it for tough talk in homeroom, kids.
Something something work forces Something something burn crosses....
80/20 take it or leave it
Yeah, seems like after people shot at trump twice, shooting politicians is all the rage again.
I hope the secret service gets its act together
I feel it's's almost certainly retaliation for perceived wrongs. What it accomplishes will depend on the person. Some will see it as scare tactics, others as a warning, more as stupidity, and others besides.
Let's just hope it's not an early herald of more.
I understand I might not be asking the right person but what's the difference between terrorism and a warning when it involves deadly force?
Intent, mostly. Other than that, not much. Because we can only assume why, even if it's easy enough to come up with answers, it's best to not leap to conclusions. I might be missing info though .
I guess I don't see the difference. If you are warning someone with a gun, the warning is that they willl use the gun. Legally that might not always be "terrorism" but the effect is the same so seems like we call it what it is.
Last I checked, brandishing a weapon is not any more legal, nor is negligent discharge of a weapon.