‘Secret Service did exactly what it was supposed to and acted quickly’; Former agents explain response to attack at dinner with Trump

See the moment when security agents remove Trump from the event after loud noises The reaction of the agents who protected President Donald Trump during the shooting attack at a dinner in Washington, on Saturday (25), followed the expected protocol and avoided a more serious outcome, according to former members of the American security forces. “They did exactly what they were supposed to do and they did it quickly, avoiding any more serious incident for the president,” said Barry Donadio, a former Secret Service agent who previously worked at the hotel where the event took place. In his assessment, the central point is response time. The images from the moment of the attack indicate that the agents had just a few seconds to act when the suspect attempted to advance. “There wasn’t much time to react, maybe two seconds. His intention seemed to be to cross the checkpoint, get as close as possible to the president and shoot,” he said. ✅ Follow the g1 international news channel on WhatsApp LIVE: Follow the news about the shootings at Trump’s dinner with journalists Successive barriers prevent approach US President Donald Trump, First Lady Melania Trump and CBS News senior White House correspondent Weijia Jiang attend the annual dinner of the White House Correspondents Association REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst Donadio describes that security at events attended by the president is structured in layers — a model that seeks precisely to prevent threats from advancing beyond the first filters. “There will be different levels of security: inner, outer and intermediate rings, with control points like those at an airport,” he explained. In this type of operation, different teams work in an integrated manner: there are groups dedicated exclusively to the president, the first lady and other authorities, in addition to the event’s own security. The overlapping of these teams creates redundancies that increase reaction capacity. For the former agent, the fact that the suspect was still contained in the access control area indicates that these barriers worked as planned. “They acted correctly. They managed to stop the shooter and save the president’s life,” he said. Protection prioritizes removal of authority The logic of action in situations like this is not necessarily to neutralize the aggressor with shots, but to ensure the safe removal of the protected person. “The initial goal is to get the protected person out of harm’s way, and you typically don’t shoot the attacker again unless it is safe to do so,” said Dennis Franks, a former FBI agent. According to him, decisions about the use of lethal force take into account the surrounding environment. In closed places with large circulation of people, the risk of reaching third parties can limit the reaction. “It is not always possible to fire safely without the risk of injuring other people,” he said. Trump is removed from event after gunshots Reuters Event with many authorities increases complexity Another point highlighted by experts is the profile of the event, which brought together a large number of authorities and public figures — a factor that increases the complexity of the security operation. “If so many public figures are going to attend, it is necessary to evaluate the location and procedures. If there is a risk, additional measures must be adopted or even choose another space”, said Franks. He highlights that this type of analysis involves everything from the physical structure of the location to screening and monitoring systems, such as metal detectors, sniffer dogs and camera surveillance. Donald Trump gestures while speaking in the James Brady Press Room, at the White House, following an unspecified threat, during the annual dinner of the White House Correspondents’ Association AP/José Luis Magana Investigation seeks to understand access and motivation In parallel with the assessment of the response, authorities are investigating how the suspect managed to enter the hotel armed and what his intentions were. For Daniel Brunner, also a former FBI agent, the investigation must advance on two fronts: the reconstruction of what happened at the scene and the individual’s history. “They will check how he got in, how he made the reservation and why he was not identified before. They will also analyze his motivations, history, movements and possible influences”, he stated. According to him, this type of investigation includes analysis of records, electronic devices and personal connections, with the aim of determining whether the attack directly targeted the president or another person present.

Source link