No, the article says that the Marines say they notified the state. Did they actually? We don’t know. But there was clearly a breakdown of communications somewhere, and the simplest assumption is that the breakdown was in the organization that was shelling civilians.
It’s unlikely as an explanation of what actually happened in this specific incident. But as a hypothetical scenario of what might go wrong in a situation like this, it’s just one more reason not to conduct exercises like this one.
What the heck does “notifying the state” even mean? There are over 200 state agencies in California.
The article also says the CHP was not notified. But maybe they were. We don’t know.
Some corporal probably sent a DM to Eric Estrada’s Twitter account.
As a matter of interest, what would be the level of risk to people on the ground from a 155 mm shell exploding near the zenith of its trajectory (as opposed as an intentional airburst over a target)? I suspect in the latter case sharpnel would not merely make ‘a small dent’ in a car’s roof.
Sure, and that’s rather the point. We don’t know. Journalists should, you know, investigate and stuff and not just report the words of agency spokespeople verbatim, whether that’s the USMC or CHP or anybody else.
As a practical matter, accepting the word of the organization that did the shooting without any other corroboration is not a great thing. Especially as people who direct the activity of that organization, e.g. Pete Hegseth, are known and inveterate liars who wouldn’t be beyond ordering deliberate obfuscation.
Whatever this administration claims, it’s a safe bet that the truth is the exact opposite.
That depends on the elevation of the tube. There is such a thing as high angle fire, generally greater than 45°, for targets in defilade for example. The shrapnel that fell in the CHP car’s hood barely scratched the paint.
In the latter case, you’re correct. That is intended to inflict death or serious bodily harm.