The Benny Hill show

Swan wrote:
The best of the best

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VRXG7njgX5U

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
The best of the best

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VRXG7njgX5U

I apologize to everyone because I didn't know that the so called fumbling fumbalina was actually a piggie

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nSjnLhmbW34

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
The best of the best

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VRXG7njgX5U

I apologize to everyone because I didn't know that the so called fumbling fumbalina was actually a piggie

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nSjnLhmbW34

As far as rules of engagement go, I don't think police can take a shot, until after they are shot at, or in this case, until after DJT and stander bys were shot at, and 1 stander by killed.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
The best of the best

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VRXG7njgX5U

I apologize to everyone because I didn't know that the so called fumbling fumbalina was actually a piggie

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nSjnLhmbW34

As far as rules of engagement go, I don't think police can take a shot, until after they are shot at, or in this case, until after DJT and stander bys were shot at, and 1 stander by killed.

Nope. All it takes is an imminent threat of serious injury or death. Walk towards a police officer waving a knife a see what happens.

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
The best of the best

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VRXG7njgX5U

I apologize to everyone because I didn't know that the so called fumbling fumbalina was actually a piggie

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nSjnLhmbW34

As far as rules of engagement go, I don't think police can take a shot, until after they are shot at, or in this case, until after DJT and stander bys were shot at, and 1 stander by killed.

Nope. All it takes is an imminent threat of serious injury or death. Walk towards a police officer waving a knife a see what happens.

I must have been thinking about the Paul Pelosi attack, nobody got shot when that imminent threat was caught on camera, and I also had another glaring example of an imminent threat ignored by police come to mind.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
The best of the best

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VRXG7njgX5U

I apologize to everyone because I didn't know that the so called fumbling fumbalina was actually a piggie

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nSjnLhmbW34

As far as rules of engagement go, I don't think police can take a shot, until after they are shot at, or in this case, until after DJT and stander bys were shot at, and 1 stander by killed.

Nope. All it takes is an imminent threat of serious injury or death. Walk towards a police officer waving a knife a see what happens.

I must have been thinking about the Paul Pelosi attack, nobody got shot when that imminent threat was caught on camera, and I also had another glaring example of an imminent threat ignored by police come to mind.

If they had shot Pelosi's attacker it would have been a legal and clean shoot. However, they likely didn't fire because Paul was too close. If the guy was firing a gun into Paul, no doubt he would have left the property in a body bag

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
The best of the best

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VRXG7njgX5U

I apologize to everyone because I didn't know that the so called fumbling fumbalina was actually a piggie

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nSjnLhmbW34

As far as rules of engagement go, I don't think police can take a shot, until after they are shot at, or in this case, until after DJT and stander bys were shot at, and 1 stander by killed.

Oh wait, did I just open myself up to be insulted by your generic response of, right, you don't think

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
The best of the best

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VRXG7njgX5U

I apologize to everyone because I didn't know that the so called fumbling fumbalina was actually a piggie

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nSjnLhmbW34

As far as rules of engagement go, I don't think police can take a shot, until after they are shot at, or in this case, until after DJT and stander bys were shot at, and 1 stander by killed.

Oh wait, did I just open myself up to be insulted by your generic response of, right, you don't think

Secret service snipers are not police, furthermore these secret service snipers violated the espionage act by not firing at the threat ASAP

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
The best of the best

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VRXG7njgX5U

I apologize to everyone because I didn't know that the so called fumbling fumbalina was actually a piggie

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nSjnLhmbW34

As far as rules of engagement go, I don't think police can take a shot, until after they are shot at, or in this case, until after DJT and stander bys were shot at, and 1 stander by killed.

Oh wait, did I just open myself up to be insulted by your generic response of, right, you don't think

Secret service snipers are not police, furthermore these secret service snipers violated the espionage act by not firing at the threat ASAP

Ok, but I don't actually know if the secret service waited for him to shoot first, or if they just took too long to get their shit together.

I mostly just wanted to talk about how law enforcement usually responds after a crime, not before.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
The best of the best

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VRXG7njgX5U

I apologize to everyone because I didn't know that the so called fumbling fumbalina was actually a piggie

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nSjnLhmbW34

As far as rules of engagement go, I don't think police can take a shot, until after they are shot at, or in this case, until after DJT and stander bys were shot at, and 1 stander by killed.

Oh wait, did I just open myself up to be insulted by your generic response of, right, you don't think

Secret service snipers are not police, furthermore these secret service snipers violated the espionage act by not firing at the threat ASAP

Ok, but I don't actually know if the secret service waited for him to shoot first, or if they just took too long to get their shit together.

I mostly just wanted to talk about how law enforcement usually responds after a crime, not before.

The secret service let him into the area with a rangefinder, which every sniper requires in some form. A good scope now has the rangefinder included on the gun, the secret service knows all of this and more that they will not tell

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
The best of the best

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VRXG7njgX5U

I apologize to everyone because I didn't know that the so called fumbling fumbalina was actually a piggie

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nSjnLhmbW34

As far as rules of engagement go, I don't think police can take a shot, until after they are shot at, or in this case, until after DJT and stander bys were shot at, and 1 stander by killed.

Oh wait, did I just open myself up to be insulted by your generic response of, right, you don't think

Secret service snipers are not police, furthermore these secret service snipers violated the espionage act by not firing at the threat ASAP

Ok, but I don't actually know if the secret service waited for him to shoot first, or if they just took too long to get their shit together.

I mostly just wanted to talk about how law enforcement usually responds after a crime, not before.

The secret service let him into the area with a rangefinder, which every sniper requires in some form. A good scope now has the rangefinder included on the gun, the secret service knows all of this and more that they will not tell

Is that a rifle scope?

That wouldn't automatically cause a sniper to spot a threat immediately, unless they knew where to look ahead of time, right?

The SS director resigned, but I haven't heard any reports of maliciously willful negligence.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
The best of the best

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VRXG7njgX5U

I apologize to everyone because I didn't know that the so called fumbling fumbalina was actually a piggie

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nSjnLhmbW34

As far as rules of engagement go, I don't think police can take a shot, until after they are shot at, or in this case, until after DJT and stander bys were shot at, and 1 stander by killed.

Oh wait, did I just open myself up to be insulted by your generic response of, right, you don't think

Secret service snipers are not police, furthermore these secret service snipers violated the espionage act by not firing at the threat ASAP

Ok, but I don't actually know if the secret service waited for him to shoot first, or if they just took too long to get their shit together.

I mostly just wanted to talk about how law enforcement usually responds after a crime, not before.

The secret service let him into the area with a rangefinder, which every sniper requires in some form. A good scope now has the rangefinder included on the gun, the secret service knows all of this and more that they will not tell

Is that a rifle scope?

That wouldn't automatically cause a sniper to spot a threat immediately, unless they knew where to look ahead of time, right?

The SS director resigned, but I haven't heard any reports of maliciously willful negligence.

lol there is new video of the loser running around on the roof, they literally let him shoot Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4cO7ffKQJg

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
The best of the best

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VRXG7njgX5U

I apologize to everyone because I didn't know that the so called fumbling fumbalina was actually a piggie

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nSjnLhmbW34

As far as rules of engagement go, I don't think police can take a shot, until after they are shot at, or in this case, until after DJT and stander bys were shot at, and 1 stander by killed.

Oh wait, did I just open myself up to be insulted by your generic response of, right, you don't think

Secret service snipers are not police, furthermore these secret service snipers violated the espionage act by not firing at the threat ASAP

Ok, but I don't actually know if the secret service waited for him to shoot first, or if they just took too long to get their shit together.

I mostly just wanted to talk about how law enforcement usually responds after a crime, not before.

The secret service let him into the area with a rangefinder, which every sniper requires in some form. A good scope now has the rangefinder included on the gun, the secret service knows all of this and more that they will not tell

Is that a rifle scope?

That wouldn't automatically cause a sniper to spot a threat immediately, unless they knew where to look ahead of time, right?

The SS director resigned, but I haven't heard any reports of maliciously willful negligence.

lol there is new video of the loser running around on the roof, they literally let him shoot Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4cO7ffKQJg

That looks like the shooter running across the roof during the speech.

But... it still begs the question to the SS... ignorant or premeditated?

It takes a long time for a bureaucratic organization running on a chain of command to make a decision. Individual snipers cannot make decisions, can they? I wouldn't think so.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:


Is that a rifle scope?

That wouldn't automatically cause a sniper to spot a threat immediately, unless they knew where to look ahead of time, right?

The SS director resigned, but I haven't heard any reports of maliciously willful negligence

lol there is new video of the loser running around on the roof, they literally let him shoot Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4cO7ffKQJg

That looks like the shooter running across the roof during the speech.

But... it still begs the question to the SS... ignorant or premeditated?

It takes a long time for a bureaucratic organization running on a chain of command to make a decision. Individual snipers cannot make decisions, can they? I wouldn't think so.

The head of the SS should not have resigned she should have been fired and arrested. However then she sings and tells us the assassination story, or as is more common decides to blow her own brains out or gets murdered on the way to testify like Oswald did

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:


Is that a rifle scope?

That wouldn't automatically cause a sniper to spot a threat immediately, unless they knew where to look ahead of time, right?

The SS director resigned, but I haven't heard any reports of maliciously willful negligence

lol there is new video of the loser running around on the roof, they literally let him shoot Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4cO7ffKQJg

That looks like the shooter running across the roof during the speech.

But... it still begs the question to the SS... ignorant or premeditated?

It takes a long time for a bureaucratic organization running on a chain of command to make a decision. Individual snipers cannot make decisions, can they? I wouldn't think so.

The head of the SS should not have resigned she should have been fired and arrested. However then she sings and tells us the assassination story, or as is more common decides to blow her own brains out or gets murdered on the way to testify like Oswald did

I haven't heard of any trial yet, in which anybody at the SS will be charged.

There have been congressional/senate hearings, but I'm not sure those are going anywhere.

The shooter is dead and his motive unclear.

But again, did you hear the shooter's uncle Mark Crooks is a demon hunter?

https://www.globaljournalct.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Global-Journal-16.2-Crooks-MS.pdf

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:


Is that a rifle scope?

That wouldn't automatically cause a sniper to spot a threat immediately, unless they knew where to look ahead of time, right?

The SS director resigned, but I haven't heard any reports of maliciously willful negligence

lol there is new video of the loser running around on the roof, they literally let him shoot Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4cO7ffKQJg

That looks like the shooter running across the roof during the speech.

But... it still begs the question to the SS... ignorant or premeditated?

It takes a long time for a bureaucratic organization running on a chain of command to make a decision. Individual snipers cannot make decisions, can they? I wouldn't think so.

The head of the SS should not have resigned she should have been fired and arrested. However then she sings and tells us the assassination story, or as is more common decides to blow her own brains out or gets murdered on the way to testify like Oswald did

I haven't heard of any trial yet, in which anybody at the SS will be charged.

There have been congressional/senate hearings, but I'm not sure those are going anywhere.

The shooter is dead and his motive unclear.

But again, did you hear the shooter's uncle Mark Crooks is a demon hunter?

https://www.globaljournalct.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Global-Journal-16.2-Crooks-MS.pdf

Exactly and there never will be an arrest or trial because they already murdered the patsy. Everything that you have ever heard or thought to yourself privately is a lie

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:


Is that a rifle scope?

That wouldn't automatically cause a sniper to spot a threat immediately, unless they knew where to look ahead of time, right?

The SS director resigned, but I haven't heard any reports of maliciously willful negligence

lol there is new video of the loser running around on the roof, they literally let him shoot Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4cO7ffKQJg

That looks like the shooter running across the roof during the speech.

But... it still begs the question to the SS... ignorant or premeditated?

It takes a long time for a bureaucratic organization running on a chain of command to make a decision. Individual snipers cannot make decisions, can they? I wouldn't think so.

The head of the SS should not have resigned she should have been fired and arrested. However then she sings and tells us the assassination story, or as is more common decides to blow her own brains out or gets murdered on the way to testify like Oswald did

I haven't heard of any trial yet, in which anybody at the SS will be charged.

There have been congressional/senate hearings, but I'm not sure those are going anywhere.

The shooter is dead and his motive unclear.

But again, did you hear the shooter's uncle Mark Crooks is a demon hunter?

https://www.globaljournalct.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Global-Journal-16.2-Crooks-MS.pdf

Exactly and there never will be an arrest or trial because they already murdered the patsy. Everything that you have ever heard or thought to yourself privately is a lie

The SS did not murder Thomas Crooks, because it was a kill done in defense.

It may be more accurate to say Crooks committed suicide.

Or maybe you want to say the demon possessing Crooks murdered Crooks?

Swan wrote:

The shot to Trumps ear was intentional and a perfect his as they are not trying to kill Trump because if they had then we would all know who murdered JFK. LOL the deep state will make Trump the next president as such.

Everything is a lie, including your thoughts themselves

Spongy Iris wrote: That sounds like a lie.

Spongy Iris wrote: Seeing as Crooks wore glasses, I'm guessing his aim was slightly off,

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: That sounds like a lie.

Whooooaaah! Easy there, Tiger. You don't question lies, especiall of men claiming to be women. You believe everything. Your "doubting" here has no credibility.

Spongy Iris wrote: Seeing as Crooks wore glasses, I'm guessing his aim was slightly off,

He hit Trump in the ear, and that was because Trump turned his head just at the moment that Crooks pulled the trigger.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: That sounds like a lie.

Whooooaaah! Easy there, Tiger. You don't question lies, especiall of men claiming to be women. You believe everything. Your "doubting" here has no credibility.

Spongy Iris wrote: Seeing as Crooks wore glasses, I'm guessing his aim was slightly off,

He hit Trump in the ear, and that was because Trump turned his head just at the moment that Crooks pulled the trigger.

Wouldn't you have to move/shift your head to dodge a bullet fired to hit you in the middle of your head?

For example, if a sniper fired a gun to hit me in my eye, and I just turned my head at the moment the sniper pulled the trigger, it would still hit my temple, and I'd be dead.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: That sounds like a lie.

Whooooaaah! Easy there, Tiger. You don't question lies, especiall of men claiming to be women. You believe everything. Your "doubting" here has no credibility.

Spongy Iris wrote: Seeing as Crooks wore glasses, I'm guessing his aim was slightly off,

He hit Trump in the ear, and that was because Trump turned his head just at the moment that Crooks pulled the trigger.

Wouldn't you have to move/shift your head to dodge a bullet fired to hit you in the middle of your head?

For example, if a sniper fired a gun to hit me in my eye, and I just turned my head at the moment the sniper pulled the trigger, it would still hit my temple, and I'd be dead.

Crooks was not a sniper; he was a walking pimple. And as I said if Trump died Bush would already be in Moscow for his own safety