Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What "assassination attempt"? Link?
You don't mean the teenager who said he "would have liked to grab a cop's gun and shoot him"? That's uh, not quite an assassination attempt, you know.
What "assassination attempt"? Link?
You don't mean the teenager who said he "would have liked to grab a cop's gun and shoot him"? That's uh, not quite an assassination attempt, you know.
A bit more than him saying "he would liked to...."
Man who attempted to grab gun at rally wanted 'to kill Trump' - CNNPolitics.com
The man arrested for trying to disarm a police officer inside a Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas Saturday told authorities he intended to use the gun "to kill Trump," according to a new criminal complaint.
Police arrested the 19-year-old after he attempted to pull a police officer's gun from its holster inside a Las Vegas theater where Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, was holding a campaign rally.
Police said Michael Sandford, a Briton, struck up a conversation with a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police officer under the pretense that he was seeking to get an autograph. During the conversation, police said Sandford tried to pull the officer's service weapon from its holster.
Other officers also assigned to provide security at the event were quickly able to detain Sandford and authorities said there was no further disruption to the event.
Sandford told police that he drove to Las Vegas from California "to kill Trump," according to the complaint, after hearing a few days earlier in the news that he was expected there.
He was in the country illegally, his visa having expired. He had been living out of his car in California for a month, according to CNN affiliate KSNV.
On June 17, he practiced shooting a gun for the first time at a gun range in Las Vegas.
"(Sandford) further stated that if he were on the street tomorrow, he would try this again," reads the complaint, obtained by CNN. "Sandford claimed he had been planning to kill Trump for about a year but decided to act on this occasion because he finally felt confident about trying it."
He made an appearance before a federal judge Monday, and has been charged with committing a violent act in a restricted area, according to KSNV. A message left with his attorney was not immediately returned.
Sandford also told authorities that had he not tried to assassinate Trump at the Las Vegas event, he had planned to go to his next rally, in Phoenix, Arizona, and try again there.
Trump is under U.S. Secret Service protection but local law enforcement often supplements them at campaign events.
The Secret Service says it has charged Sandford with violating two federal laws following the incident, including assault, and he could face up to a decade in prison if convicted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet you if this had been an NRA member, right wing conservative and Hillary Clinton, we'd be hearing it 24/7 on every news channel and this board would be flooded with outcry from the liberal left. BUT... since it was a Brit who overstayed his visa and Trump, we hear crickets.
In any case since all he had was a vague plan and never actually fired a gun, that's not an assassination attempt.
In any case since all he had was a vague plan and never actually fired a gun, that's not an assassination attempt.
He was planning it for about a year, sources say. Uhm... yeah, that's an assassination attempt.... a failed one, but still an attempt. And if you think there would have been this kind of total silence from the media had it been Hillary and a right-wing NRA member, you need to lay down your crack pipe.
In any case since all he had was a vague plan and never actually fired a gun, that's not an assassination attempt.
He was planning it for about a year, sources say. Uhm... yeah, that's an assassination attempt.... a failed one, but still an attempt. And if you think there would have been this kind of total silence from the media had it been Hillary and a right-wing NRA member, you need to lay down your crack pipe.
No, it isn't. An assassination attempt is an action, not a thought. If murders were thoughts --- we'd all be in prison.
You still haven't explained what your speculation fantasy means. There is no event here; why would there be a news blitz for a non-event? Are you seriously going on the internets -- which goes all over the world -- and suggesting that Hillary Clinton is a news magnet and Donald Rump isn't?
A "failed attempt" would be Hinckley, or Squeaky Fromme. They got off shots but failed to accomplish their goal. At a stretch you could call Orgega-Hernández a "failed attempt", in that he failed to do his homework and just shot into the dark --- and that's quite a stretch, seeing as how no bullet exists that could travel 2500 miles. Seeing as how hitting his target would have been scientifically impossible, it's really not legitimate to call even that an "attempt".
This one didn't even do that. Nobody fired at anybody.
When you attempt to do something ---- there has to be some possibility of succeeding. If there isn't ---- then either there was no such possibility of succeeding (as in Ortega-Hernández) or you didn't make the attempt (as in Sanford) -- or both.
Planning is not doing. This is the real world, not Catholic Church.
In any case since all he had was a vague plan and never actually fired a gun, that's not an assassination attempt.
He was planning it for about a year, sources say. Uhm... yeah, that's an assassination attempt.... a failed one, but still an attempt. And if you think there would have been this kind of total silence from the media had it been Hillary and a right-wing NRA member, you need to lay down your crack pipe.
No, it isn't. An assassination attempt is an action, not a thought. If murders were thoughts --- we'd all be in prison.
You still haven't explained what your speculation fantasy means. There is no event here; why would there be a news blitz for a non-event? Are you seriously going on the internets -- which goes all over the world -- and suggesting that Hillary Clinton is a news magnet and Donald Rump isn't?
A "failed attempt" would be Hinckley, or Squeaky Fromme. They got off shots but failed to accomplish their goal. At a stretch you could call Orgega-Hernández a "failed attempt", in that he failed to do his homework and just shot into the dark --- and that's quite a stretch, seeing as how no bullet exists that could travel 2500 miles. Seeing as how hitting his target would have been scientifically impossible, it's really not legitimate to call even that an "attempt".
This one didn't even do that. Nobody fired at anybody.
When you attempt to do something ---- there has to be some possibility of succeeding. If there isn't ---- then either there was no such possibility of succeeding (as in Ortega-Hernández) or you didn't make the attempt (as in Sanford) -- or both.
Planning is not doing. This is the real world, not Catholic Church.
But he TOOK action, that's why he was arrested and charged. He faces up to 10 years in prison for his action, not his thoughts.
I never claimed he assassinated Trump... he failed to do so. It was planned, attempted and he failed. You seem to think there is some arbitrary threshold of success one must have in order to establish having attempted something. There is not. Of course, you are about as stupid a human can get and not end up in some kind of institution.
In any case since all he had was a vague plan and never actually fired a gun, that's not an assassination attempt.
He was planning it for about a year, sources say. Uhm... yeah, that's an assassination attempt.... a failed one, but still an attempt. And if you think there would have been this kind of total silence from the media had it been Hillary and a right-wing NRA member, you need to lay down your crack pipe.
No, it isn't. An assassination attempt is an action, not a thought. If murders were thoughts --- we'd all be in prison.
You still haven't explained what your speculation fantasy means. There is no event here; why would there be a news blitz for a non-event? Are you seriously going on the internets -- which goes all over the world -- and suggesting that Hillary Clinton is a news magnet and Donald Rump isn't?
A "failed attempt" would be Hinckley, or Squeaky Fromme. They got off shots but failed to accomplish their goal. At a stretch you could call Orgega-Hernández a "failed attempt", in that he failed to do his homework and just shot into the dark --- and that's quite a stretch, seeing as how no bullet exists that could travel 2500 miles. Seeing as how hitting his target would have been scientifically impossible, it's really not legitimate to call even that an "attempt".
This one didn't even do that. Nobody fired at anybody.
When you attempt to do something ---- there has to be some possibility of succeeding. If there isn't ---- then either there was no such possibility of succeeding (as in Ortega-Hernández) or you didn't make the attempt (as in Sanford) -- or both.
Planning is not doing. This is the real world, not Catholic Church.
But he TOOK action, that's why he was arrested and charged. He faces up to 10 years in prison for his action, not his thoughts.
I never claimed he assassinated Trump... he failed to do so. It was planned, attempted and he failed. You seem to think there is some arbitrary threshold of success one must have in order to establish having attempted something. There is not. Of course, you are about as stupid a human can get and not end up in some kind of institution.
He committed an action, and the action he committed ---- was not an assassination attempt. It was grabbing a cop's gun.
**HAD** he succeeded at that action..... **THEN** he (presumably) would have moved on to his next action. *IF* he could. But he did not succeed, hence there was no subsequent action.
**HAD** he actually been able to do that and successfully got off a shot at Rump, **THEN** you would have an assassination attempt, whether it actually hit Rump or not.
Sorry, it's not even possible to dumb this down any more elementarily for you.
Again ---- **PLOTTING** is not the same as actually **DOING**.
December 1960. Richard Pavlick decides to assassinate President-elect Kennedy. Pavlick hates Catholics and believes his town's drinking water is being poisoned. Pavlick gives away his property, buys dynamite, loads it into his car and parks outside a church in Palm Beach Florida. When Kennedy comes out he's going to blow the POTUS-elect and himself up. Kennedy comes out, with his wife and children. Seeing the wife and kids, Pavlick chickens out and doesn't throw the switch because he doesn't want the collateral damage.
Is that an "assassination attempt"? NO.
In any case since all he had was a vague plan and never actually fired a gun, that's not an assassination attempt.
He was planning it for about a year, sources say. Uhm... yeah, that's an assassination attempt.... a failed one, but still an attempt. And if you think there would have been this kind of total silence from the media had it been Hillary and a right-wing NRA member, you need to lay down your crack pipe.
No, it isn't. An assassination attempt is an action, not a thought. If murders were thoughts --- we'd all be in prison.
You still haven't explained what your speculation fantasy means. There is no event here; why would there be a news blitz for a non-event? Are you seriously going on the internets -- which goes all over the world -- and suggesting that Hillary Clinton is a news magnet and Donald Rump isn't?
A "failed attempt" would be Hinckley, or Squeaky Fromme. They got off shots but failed to accomplish their goal. At a stretch you could call Orgega-Hernández a "failed attempt", in that he failed to do his homework and just shot into the dark --- and that's quite a stretch, seeing as how no bullet exists that could travel 2500 miles. Seeing as how hitting his target would have been scientifically impossible, it's really not legitimate to call even that an "attempt".
This one didn't even do that. Nobody fired at anybody.
When you attempt to do something ---- there has to be some possibility of succeeding. If there isn't ---- then either there was no such possibility of succeeding (as in Ortega-Hernández) or you didn't make the attempt (as in Sanford) -- or both.
Planning is not doing. This is the real world, not Catholic Church.
But he TOOK action, that's why he was arrested and charged. He faces up to 10 years in prison for his action, not his thoughts.
I never claimed he assassinated Trump... he failed to do so. It was planned, attempted and he failed. You seem to think there is some arbitrary threshold of success one must have in order to establish having attempted something. There is not. Of course, you are about as stupid a human can get and not end up in some kind of institution.
He committed an action, and the action he committed ---- was not an assassination attempt. It was grabbing a cop's gun.
**HAD** he succeeded at that action..... **THEN** he (presumably) would have moved on to his next action. *IF* he could. But he did not succeed, hence there was no subsequent action.
**HAD** he actually been able to do that and successfully got off a shot at Rump, **THEN** you would have an assassination attempt, whether it actually hit Rump or not.
Sorry, it's not even possible to dumb this down any more elementarily for you.
Again ---- **PLOTTING** is not the same as actually **DOING**.
No... It was an assassination attempt because he stated that was his intentions. There is no requirement for him to have any level of success in his assassination attempt for it to be an assassination attempt. Had he been more successful and actually fired a shot, he would have merely been more successful at his attempted assassination.
December 1960. Richard Pavlick decides to assassinate President-elect Kennedy. Pavlick hates Catholics and believes his town's drinking water is being poisoned. Pavlick gives away his property, buys dynamite, loads it into his car and parks outside a church in Palm Beach Florida. When Kennedy comes out he's going to blow the POTUS-elect and himself up. Kennedy comes out, with his wife and children. Seeing the wife and kids, Pavlick chickens out and doesn't throw the switch because he doesn't want the collateral damage.
Is that an "assassination attempt"? NO.
He plotted to assassinate but didn't carry through with an action. So it's not an assassination attempt.
No.... had he been more successful and actually fired a shot, THEN there would be an assassination attempt.
Well now you're just repeating yourself. You were wrong the first time and you continue to be wrong. There is no requirement for any level of success in an attempted assassination for it to BE an attempted assassination.
He intended to assassinate... he stated as much... he attempted to get the cop's gun and failed. Had he only THOUGHT about attempting to get the cop's gun, it wouldn't have been an assassination attempt... it would have merely been a plot to assassinate. But since he went for the gun, it's an attempted assassination. He failed miserably... but he still attempted it.
Now you can keep on repeating yourself on this... I don't really care... it has been reported on the news and described as an assassination attempt
I actually LIKE for you to show people how utterly stupid you are.
