Spotlight On America: From Social Insanity to Moral Injury

But before we start going into all the other shows, something we were talking about last week that you had asked a question about, why is it in Charlie Kirk's assassination, the campus didn't have drone technology? And there's a lot of and why the rooftops weren't covered.

There's a lot of things that encompass this.

And one of the things is, is that, you know, you're security detail he had was just for charlie kirk's immediate vicinity they weren't allowed to go out into all the other areas you had campus police that would cover that area that would work in conjunction with local law enforcement and how well the two communicated we can't answer that but you asked about drones and as we're looking doing little research some of these drones cost around three thousand dollars per drone and campus security may not have the the uh finances for that the budget for it however even if they did because there was a large crowd on the ground um the nta the national transportation authority uh will not allow them to fly the drones over a large crowd So they need a special permission, which requires you to go through a whole rigmarole and jump through all these hoops just simply to allow them to fly these drones over a crowd.

Now, you don't have the president there.

So, of course, they're not going to give it.

You know, you just got someone talking to a crowd of kids and student lecture.

And they obviously they didn't think if they had the drones that they would have been given the permission.

So here's another factor into maybe why those rooftops weren't covered, why there weren't drones flying around to protect additional security.

There's so many moving pieces in this.

And more is going to come out as this kid goes to trial.

Well, moving forward, they have to incorporate this as part of their protocol, security protocols.

Not for every event, but when you have controversial, I mean, when you're going to have enraged left on the scene.

Put it that way.

This is the thing is, you know, how serious do you take the threats that he has had against his life? Were there any previous attempts? There's a lot of factors that go into making that determination.

How much at risk would he have been had they known the seriousness of the threat? Was anything overtly said? As far as we know, there were no overt threats.

So would they have granted them permission to fly the drones if they had them?

Well, I guess what I'm trying to say is more institutional.

All I'm saying is, institutionally, they should, I mean, forward thinking is always, you know, or Monday quarterbacking is always good.

But, you know, when it comes to certain people, say, for instance, like RFK, back in those days, they didn't really cover candidates, presidential candidates.

But after his death, guess what?

But then again, they've been denying coverage when RFK was running, Jr.

They would not give him Secret Service coverage.

So again, it is subjective.

And who is the administration at the time? I mean, here we had Trump as the administration.

And I guess if someone turned around and says, hey, pull some strings, talk to whoever the chief is of that department and get it gone through, probably it would have happened if they had the drone technology.