Trump Shot

Per FBI, first report of person of interest 90 minutes prior to the shooting. In a hearing I watched on CSPAN over the weekend (obviously recorded) a democrat who visited Butler said, "multiple local officials told him there is more to the story and that their communications were being suppressed."
 
theiioftx said:
Per FBI, first report of person of interest 90 minutes prior to the shooting. In a hearing I watched on CSPAN over the weekend (obviously recorded) a democrat who visited Butler said, "multiple local officials told him there is more to the story and that their communications were being suppressed."
Click to expand...
Of course, there is more to the story. Those who screwed up need time to destroy evidence and make-up stories.
 
In testimony today, there is a recording of all local police communications, but none for the secret service or FBI.
 
Things keep getting wierder.
FBI testifies one thing. CEO of Plarform conradicts
Abbate testified that Thomas Matthew Crooks had posted hundreds of messages to social media, including some that expressed anti-Semitic and anti-immigration sentiments.
'To the best of Gab's knowledge, as of 2021, Crooks was a pro-lockdown, pro-immigration, left-wing Joe Biden supporter.'
“Some of these comments, if ultimately attributable to the shooter, appear to reflect antisemitic and anti-immigration themes, to espouse political violence, and are described as extreme in nature,” said Abbate.
Andrew Torba, the CEO of the Gab social media platform, then said that he had received a request from the FBI about posts that might be attributed to Crooks but added that they appeared to show motivation opposite to Abbate's testimony.

"This is not consistent with Gab's understanding of the shooter'.

​


https://www.hornfans.com/javascript:void(0)
"Gab CEO contradicts testimony from FBI deputy director about social media posts attributed to Trump rally shooter | Blaze Media
 
I think they allowed it. They might not have planned it with Crooks, but they certainly did nothing to stop him, then quickly blamed local police.
 
The mainstream news doesn't cover Trump rallies except for the one with the shooting. There must be some TV execs who are really disappointed.
 
The latest vids showing local LEOs climbing to roof where shooter was and then trying to get SS to stop attempt are devastating. That firefighter would be alive if there was communication between them.
BTW what happened to all those pics showing a ladder propped against the roof?
 
nashhorn said:
Can that family sue the SS? Is that allowable?
Click to expand...
mchammer said:
Folks who entered the rally may have signed a waiver but that doesn’t protect against gross negligence.
Click to expand...

Suing the Secret Service would be a Federal Tort Claims Act case against the government. Under the FTCA, the federal government becomes liable as a private actor would under the laws of the state where the alleged wrongful act occurred (even though the case is brought in federal court). Accordingly, it would depend on whether Pennsylvania state tort law would hold the SS liable.

I don't know PA tort law well enough to make the call, but I'm skeptical. The SS would argue that it's not there as a general security service or even as a general law enforcement agency but only to protect the candidate and his family and therefore only owes a duty to protect them, not everybody at the rally. I think a court would probably find that persuasive. (Of course, that would leave open the possibility of Trump suing the SS.)
 
Couldn’t they ague the shot they failed to prevent due to negligence was intended for the president and killed their husband/father? Not meaning to belabor it simply bothers me this is going to go away with a good man being killed and the guilty unpunished.
 
nashhorn said:
Couldn’t they ague the shot they failed to prevent due to negligence was intended for the president and killed their husband/father? Not meaning to belabor it simply bothers me this is going to go away with a good man being killed and the guilty unpunished.
Click to expand...

I think that's the best argument in favour, but even that presumes some level of tort duty to the public. I don't think most courts would go along.

And even when a duty is found, imposing tort liability for the intentional acts of others is pretty limited. Very tough cases to prove enough to even get to court and very tough to win in court.

Think about it. Suppose a woman gets raped in her apartment complex. She sues the complex for inadequate security. They designate the rapist as a responsible third party and bash him the entire trial. How bad would the complex's failure have to be to not put most of the blame on the actual rapist? It's a tough case to win if you're the plaintiff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Season Confidence Prediction

Rank your win/loss confidence predictions for the season.

Season Confidence
Prediction Thread

100 Day Countdown 2024

Help us count down to game day with your favorite player pics.

100 Day Countdown 2024

Recent Threads

Back
Top