• Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    143
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    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?

    • The Pantser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      79
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Also she’s still VP! It should be treated as treason because there is a chance she could have been there.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

      • SassyRamen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        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!

    • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      dude it’s arizona. i give it 75/25 that whoever’s “investigating” were the ones who did it

    • Kaboom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      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

    • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.worldB
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • neclimdul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        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?

        • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.worldB
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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 .

          • neclimdul@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • bbuez@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Last I checked, brandishing a weapon is not any more legal, nor is negligent discharge of a weapon.