[Diamondback]

I've been doing some thinking, and something didn't sound quite right about Trump bragging he could literally commit murder in broad daylight and still not only get a walk for it but not lose any of his electoral support.

The question:
What happens if a USSS-protected Principal attempts to commit an assault, homicide or other violent crime? Are they obligated to prevent the other person from acting in self-defense, or still required to take the hit, or something else?

Me, I probably wouldn't be a good agent, because if I saw my protectee teeing up I'd probably immediately respond to THEM as I would a threat to them. I'm not gonna stand in the way of self defense and enable an aggressor, no sir... This is why my brief stint in the game ended when the young lady y'all mentored me on protecting left my life. (Y'all Did Good, for the record... she's still around because of us. )

 

[William R. Moore]

Doctrine is that when you see the principal getting wound up, you get him out of there-NOW! There used to be a story about some twit deciding to be baaaaad. He sucker punched a biker and then ducked back through his detail-sort of a "take care of my light work" thing.

 

[Kevin Gibson]

They are a law enforcement officer, constitutionally speaking, they do not have a duty to act.

Now that being the case, lack of action, or mis-action can be a very career defining moment. I sure the hell wouldn't take a bullet for Trump.

 

[TommyGunn]

They are a law enforcement officer, constitutionally speaking, they do not have a duty to act.

Now that being the case, lack of action, or mis-action can be a very career defining moment. I sure the hell wouldn't take a bullet for Trump.

Uh, Kevin, don't you think it might be prudent to see who he wants as vice president before you decide that? :twisted:

 

[Diamondback]

Let's rewind a little, clarifying the question. Principal has ALREADY fired first shot, unprovoked; target is preparing to defend self after a fortunate miss or near-miss and Principal appears to intend to Stay For The Party.

What happens, on both sides, after Target starts drawstroke? (Hence why I would not be a good agent, straight to "Drop it, sir, or Name Your Beneficiaries"--not even a sitting President is above the law on Attempted Murder IMO.)

 

[William R. Moore]

The duty to act would require disarming the principal and holding for legal action by authorities.

I was thinking just a few minutes ago that it would be interesting if the other candidates did an Ides of March thing on Trump during a debate. Justification would be clear and present danger to the Republic. I'd vote for acquittal.

 

[csmkersh]

I'd vote for acquittal.

I would not and I'd worry that it might lead to a civil war as it did originally. People are fed up with the parties.

 

[Diamondback]

One thing's for sure: no matter who's blamed--and there's plenty of it to go around, my bet is the Courtroom of History on this one will see more defendants than Nuremberg--we're on a powder keg not seen since the days of Dred Scott, John Brown and Bleeding Kansas.

Well, two: As Obi-wan said of Mos Eisley, "A wretched hive of scum and villainy--we must be cautious."

 

[CaptainGyro]

People are fed up with the parties.

Bullseye.

 

[Kevin Gibson]

Such would be a great opportunity for the USSS to frag their principle.

Would you miss him???

 

[IrishCop]

Such would be a great opportunity for the USSS to frag their principle.

Would you miss him???

Careful, Kevin. We just had the USSS come to our office a couple of weeks ago because some local teenager made threatening remarks online about a presidential candidate who was visiting our general area just before Super Tuesday. :ehsmile:

No big deal. SOP to check on stuff like that. Scared the bejeezus out of the kid when a couple of my guys and the USSS talked to him at school, though.

 

[Kevin Gibson]

Okay in all seriousness...

USSS is a law enforcement agency and when you get very technical, they do not have a duty to respond; that's the letter of the law. Realistically the agency would crucify anyone who didn't respond.

B U T... and this is the biggie. And consider that executive protection is a former line of work for me.

You NEVER allow your protectee to carry; EVER. And there's about a half million reasons for this. If it ever comes down to your protectee needing to arm himself to defend his life, as you die, you toss him your gun.

Every bit as big as the job of keeping your protectee alive, it is your job to also keep him out of trouble. Him carrying compromises both of those jobs immensely. If someone takes a shot at your protectee, your first and foremost job is to get the the hell out of that situation. You can't do that if your protectee is engaging in a gun battle. On the keep him out of trouble front, it should be clear all the potential problems that can arrive.

What I always told them was...You're an absolute professional at making large sums of money. I'm a professional at keeping you alive. What say we both stick to our primary professions?

 

[Kevin Gibson]

Careful, Kevin. We just had the USSS come to our office a couple of weeks ago because some local teenager made threatening remarks online about a presidential candidate who was visiting our general area just before Super Tuesday. :ehsmile:

No big deal. SOP to check on stuff like that. Scared the bejeezus out of the kid when a couple of my guys and the USSS talked to him at school, though.

Yeah probably not the smartest choice in words...I sure hope it's abundantly clear I was not being serious. Even the people I dislike the most, I never EVER actually wish physical harm to them...that's just not gentlemanly.

 

[TommyGunn]

Okay in all seriousness...

USSS is a law enforcement agency and when you get very technical, they do not have a duty to respond; that's the letter of the law. Realistically the agency would crucify anyone who didn't respond.

B U T... and this is the biggie. And consider that executive protection is a former line of work for me.

You NEVER allow your protectee to carry; EVER. And there's about a half million reasons for this. If it ever comes down to your protectee needing to arm himself to defend his life, as you die, you toss him your gun.

Every bit as big as the job of keeping your protectee alive, it is your job to also keep him out of trouble. Him carrying compromises both of those jobs immensely. If someone takes a shot at your protectee, your first and foremost job is to get the the hell out of that situation. You can't do that if your protectee is engaging in a gun battle. On the keep him out of trouble front, it should be clear all the potential problems that can arrive.

What I always told them was...You're an absolute professional at making large sums of money. I'm a professional at keeping you alive. What say we both stick to our primary professions?

An interesting statement to make, Kevin -- and I am not for one second doubting your bona fides to make it --- but I did learn one thing about Ronald Reagan from reading Bill O'Reilly's book, "Killing Reagan," (well, actually I learned a lot of things about Reagan):
He carried a gun on his person throughout his presidency.
Yup.
Didn't help him against Hinckley .... but I think he was very traumatized by that assassination attempt and it's what primarily motivated him to carry.

Ya gonna say "no" to the "Gipper, "Pilgrim?" [/John Wayne accent]

 

[Kevin Gibson]

Well no, you're not going to say no to the POTUS when you're USSS. The director will lay out his case and when POTUS makes his decision, you have to live with it. But I wasn't USSS, I was private and if I didn't like what my protectee did, I could walk. I only had that conversation one time, and I could see he was pretty head strong about it. I told him to just fire me if he has his own protection sewn up. But then I directed the conversation toward mutual trust and I told him that I always carried a backup and if we were ever in a stand and fight situation he would find himself adequately armed very quickly and he accepted that. Okay, the conversation went all over the map, but that's where it all ended up.

 

[Diamondback]

Kevin, that reminds me of a discussion with the young lady who was my Principal so long ago... about clear delegation of responsibilities once it looked like Game On. "You may say 'No', but only *I* get to say 'GO' and open hostilities in response to a threat."

It also may have helped her understand where I was coming from that I ran her through a force-on-force exercise where we "traded places" so she had to walk in my shoes for a bit.

 

[Kevin Gibson]

Kevin, that reminds me of a discussion with the young lady who was my Principal so long ago... about clear delegation of responsibilities once it looked like Game On. "You may say 'No', but only *I* get to say 'GO' and open hostilities in response to a threat."

It also may have helped her understand where I was coming from that I ran her through a force-on-force exercise where we "traded places" so she had to walk in my shoes for a bit.

You always have to have those conversations and they're never fun conversations because the protectee often resents your mere presence.

 

[M118LR]

The question:
What happens if a USSS-protected Principal attempts to commit an assault, homicide or other violent crime?

Detail Specific. Head of State, former Head of State, Diplomat immunity?

The package is seldom experienced enough to become embroiled in such a confrontation before a Trained Agent Escorts them out of such a situation.

Attempted assault, = removal from the detail.
Actual assault, = removal from service.

http://www.secretservice.gov/about/history/events/

 

[Diamondback]

Let's assume no DI. USG protectee (POTUS, VPOTUS, candidates/_-elect there-for/families thereof). Of course in DI cases, the only thing you can do even in case of brazen homicide is PNG 'em and send 'em home unless the home country revokes creds...

In short, could POTUS or a candidate for same actually get away with murder in broad daylight because of his detail, and if he missed and the intended victim reacted accordingly in self-defense what consequences would befall said vic?

Kevin, in my case those talks went smoother because in light of her biggest career ambition being maternity she knew she was going to need to take special care of seeing to her kids' safety with a stalker lurking, so I was able to appeal to that instinct and play the card of "you're going to need to do for them then what I do for you now, so I'm going to 'show my work' as we go, not just the How but the Why." Like you said, it's all in knowing how to "speak the Principal's language," right?