273
Secret Service spotted Trump rally shooter on roof 20 minutes before gunfire erupted
(abcnews.go.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
273 points (98.2% liked)
News
23406 readers
2993 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Will there? Who was asking "did he buy a ladder that day? If so, did he use the ladder?"
Did he also buy a pack of gum and a Snickers? We must know!
Is a man not allowed to buy a ladder? I thought this was America!
You don't think there were people asking. "How did he even get on the roof? Did he buy a ladder or was there already One there? Why was there one already there?"
Have you been in the comment sections of any of these?
Explaining how he did get on the roof is one thing. Waste everyone's time enumerating other ways he didn't use is another.
I think such people don't need to be catered to. What he did not bring to his assassination attempt is not in any way relevant.
Bad take
Hrmm it’s almost like people may do stuff as a diversion and mislead people sometimes..,,
He bought a ladder to divert and mislead people who didn't know what he was going to do?
Yeah we get it, you’re not creative enough to think of anything. Yeah he bought a ladder and left it at another building to make it seem like something else maybe. I’m sure you can think of a couple dozen situations easily yourself.
Common tactic dude. Do you really need diversions explained to you….?
If he left it at another building, why didn't they find it? They said they didn't find it.
Why’s that important? The thing is you need to follow every possible lead, which is real, which is diversion, you don’t know till you check.
Take a break from the internet today dude, you’re already on the downswing.
I gave you an example, I’m not expanding the story, I’m sorry you can’t comprehend that.
When did this become about investigators following leads? This was about ABC reporting a detail that added nothing important to the story and the lack of it would have taken nothing important from the story.
Investigators aren’t perfect, and yeah you don’t know what small detail is important toll investigators check. What’s wrong with journalists doing their own investigating? It actually has lead to results police/investigators missed before.
We only know it’s not important in hindsight, it could still be important since they haven’t found it as you said. So you are making claims it’s not when we don’t even know yet….
Yeesh dude.
This is also not about journalists doing investigating. This is about putting an unnecessary detail in a story.
Omitting unnecessary details is one of the first things you learn in a journalism class. It was not a necessary detail for the readers.
Did we know it was unnecessary at the time? Or only after the fact?
You’re putting future knowledge on the topic.
I’m sorry I must have been sleeping during that specific topic, but you must have been asleep during comprehension and understating class. And asleep during the tracking leads and being thorough part of the classes….
Don’t take shots that are way off base dude, even in journalism they teach to track down every lead as well. Again, the knowledge at the time was they didn’t know it was unnecessary, so to not include it could potentially be dangerous to the public as well.
At what time? At the time of writing the article? Yes. Because it neither adds to nor takes away anything from the story as written in the article, as I said. There is nothing about that detail that enhances the rest of the article at all.
I just don't understand why you're so fired up and bothering to argue about it then? Seems super trivial if you thought it neither adds nor takes away. Your only point in this argument is that the article could have left out some detail, for what, to be a little bit shorter??
I do get your overalll point, and if it was a random mass shooting, I'd agree that we don't need every little detail about the shooter's life story. There is some nuance to the fact that this was the attempted assassination of a former president, so it is going to be one of the biggest news stories in the US, and they're going to report all kinds of details about his life.
But the detail that he bought a ladder that morning is, in my opinion, relevant whether he ultimately brought it with him or not, and not a random detail. His activities leading up to the attempted assassination are relevant to understanding his thinking and mindset. It sheds light into how much prior planning or thought went into it.
I'm not fired up, I'm just responding to you. You keep asking me questions. The polite thing is to answer.
Fair enough. Police will disclose and journalists will often report the number of weapons and ammo or any explosive devices found at the perpetrator's home, even if they were not brought to the scene or used in the crime. I think the ladder is a detail in the same vein because it is equipment that he had available to him.
Neat! I'm sure you sell lots of newspapers
I'm sure you've decided to troll, so I'm not going to continue this conversation.
All of his activities on that day are relevant to creating a complete picture of what occurred, and journalists choosing to withhold details and information is kind of a slippery slope?
EDIT, including this here so it is higher up in this argument thread:
Police will disclose and journalists will often report the number of weapons and ammo or any explosive devices found at the perpetrator’s home, even if they were not brought to the scene or used in the crime. I think the ladder is a detail in the same vein because it is equipment that he had available to him.
Really? How many times he took a shit that morning was relevant?
No, but you know that.
So it's not important that every detail be shared then.
Good. Glad we got that cleared up.
No one said it was. And you're not even the person I was conversing with
Uhh, I am the user who said that... are you a bot that doesn't contextualize by username, perhaps? Probably just a simple mistake by a human.
It's a false equivalency: taking a shit is not equivalent to the shooter buying a ladder, and I don't think any reasonable person or journalist would count how many times he used the bathroom as part of his activities.
That's as much engagement of your semantic argument as you're going to get out of me.
My apologies. I will delete my post.
Oh hey, someone with no life!
It was already reported he bought a ladder that day previously so this is probably to clear that up. I, at least, found it to be interesting info ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well, Muzz, I guess it's just you, and... and me... and your balls... and this drawer.