Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Protecting the president - how better?
#1
The shooting of the ex-president was inexcusable. The secret service failed miserably. An inch to the left and the candidate would have been brain dead. The killer shot multible times from a factory roof top 100 meters (328') away killing one, wounding others. Granted, you don't want copters flying around making noise during speeches, but to have no surveillance is irresponsible and unprofessional. 
Drones come to mind for outdoor events such as the military, traffic control and the police uses. Is there such a thing as real time satellite imaging? Granted, the secret service was close by and supposedly screens were in place to prevent weapons in the audience, but what about bullet-proof shields protecting the orator for outdoor events? None existed! Millions are spent protecting the president. So where's all that money going?!!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)