Yes, a partially visible head at that distance is a low-percengage target.philip964 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 11:14 amSo a 4” dia bullseye at 150 yards is a low percentage shot.Mike S wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:19 pmRespectfully, the guys you spoke to are incorrect. What the USSS, like any domestic counter-sniper team needs to have, according to Graham V Connor, is to be able to ID an actual lethal threat before taking the shot. If the snipers had observed the loonies rifle, that would have been all the justification they would need to smoke him. No "Green Light" is needed in the real world, unless that is a local protocol for some risk-averse departments.philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 6:05 pm I asked some guys in the security business, I respect, about why the counter sniper did not fire earlier. They said without question that he or she was waiting for authorization to fire.
They also said it was not a one in a million shot that the counter sniper made.
They also said something about a pooch.
I really didn't need anymore evidence than what they told me.
Some stupid person low crawling on the reverse slope of a metal roof isn't a clearly articulated lethal threat to the protectee or others life. Obviously both the N & S ctr-sniper teams were made aware there was someone on the roof, because both teams repositioned to orient on him. What we dont know is what info was blasted out that the snipera were tracking; if they had a clear target description & knew dipstick had a rifle, then as soon as they had a shot I'd imagine they'd take it, even if they couldn't see the rifle but other LEOs had reported it would still pass the Grahm test & as soon as his head crested over the peak of the roof it would have (or should have) came apart.
One in a million shot is likely an overstatement; a better way of saying it would be "it was a low-percentage shot", & as a shooting forum we'll understand that means there was very little of the dude's head exposed for the sniper to aim at. ((I wasn't there & don't have anything other than what's been publicly discussed, and that's what I'm basing this on)). But, as a former sniper & instructor I can tell you it only takes seconds to pivot on your bipod or tripod & engage a head shot at 200 meters, IF you are already oriented very near to where the head is expected to pop up. We call them "Snap Engagements", or "Snaps". And it seems that within seconds of the loonie firing he was neutralized. So, this isn't likely on the snipers.
Now, whoever was responsible for the site plan & decided to NOT establish an off limits area around that building, and allowed civilians to congregate in that area, that should be a career ender.
There's a lot of info in the public domain already, and a metric poop ton more of people spouting off click bait. Let's be better than that on this forum.
Attachment suggests quite a delay in counter fire. Why?
Secondly, I'd recommend blocking anything from the "HealthRanger" guy. I'd never heard of him, so I looked him up. He seems to be a well known shyster peddling mis- & disinformation.
Listen to any video footage of the actual shooting & count the seconds from 1st shot to the 9th shot (9th shot being the suppressed rifle shot of the ctr sniper on the southern position). My uncalibrated brain came up with about 6 or 7 seconds from 1st shot at Trump to neutralized threat (counting in my head one-thousand; two-thousand; etc).
Then, compare that to the screenshot you posted of his "digital analysis".
You will note that his timeline begins with the sound spike of the 1st shot already at the 5 second mark, and the 9th sound spike of the counter snipers shot being just after the 10.2 second mark (im thinking the smaller audio spike of the sniper's shot is because the rifle was suppressed, and because of the distance from the camera that recorded the events unfolding). That's only 5.2'ish seconds from 1st shot to the sniper taking his shot.
In the body of his post he asserts that "there was another 10+ second gap" between the shooters 8th shot & the sniper taking his shot. But, his own screenshot shows the entire live fire event was over in about 5 seconds.
He also stated emphatically that the sniper should have used suppressive fire to disrupt the shooter in the 3 second delay from the initial volley & the final 5 shots. Suppressive fire isnt appropriate for this setting, and it's WAY different than delivering precision fire to shut down the threat. And suppressive fire when other LEOs are (or we're supposed to be...) inside the target building? Suppressive fire when there's non-threat civilians downrange? Again, this is rubbish. And he ends his post with the implication that perhaps the counter sniper delayed his response on purpose...
I've never heard of "HealthRanger" before , and based on this one example I'd critically question anything else he says.