Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What’s wrong with this Daily Caller Headline?
My guess or hope is that the Daily Caller will revise the headline soon after getting blowback from its readers. There was nothing “alleged” about the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. It was an attempt to assassinate him; an attempt to kill him – full stop. It wasn’t an ear piercing gone wrong or even an alleged attempted ear piercing gone wrong.
There were a lot of weak initial responses to the assassination attempt on Mr. Trump, but the moment that Mr. Trump was shot one could safely assume that the shooter wasn’t on the roof of the AGR building to shoot clay pigeons or the occasional stray crow flying hither and thither; that his grip on his rifle may have slipped or he was somehow unaware that the former president was inconveniently in the way of his recreational activity.
There have been a lot of baseless statements and speculations after the attempted assassination. After several days had passed and even after the often evasive and smarmy Director of the FBI testified before Congress, he later gave fuel to the notion that there was a possibility that Mr. Trump may have been hit with shrapnel rather than directly from a bullet (because somehow that would make a difference about the attempted assassination), a statement which the Assistant Director of the FBI had to walk back.
I realize that with most crimes that have not been adjudicated in a court of law, the standard journalistic practice is to use the word “alleged” before the words “murderer” or “thief” or “rapist.” But in this case, there should be no doubt that Mr. Crooks was attempting to assassinate the former President of the United States. So, hopefully, this is a simple oversight from a Daily Caller editor who should know better.
Published in General
I never said that I didn’t hear the first shots. If you can show me where I wrote that no shots were fired or heard before Trump touched his ear that would be great. What I wrote was:
“When I saw Trump reach up to his ear and heard the successive pops, I immediately knew that someone was shooting a firearm at the former president while he was on the stage.”
Please also note the use of the words: “successive pops” – which would imply that I knew there were shots BEFORE Trump touched his ear.
I’m happy to point you to courses on remedial reading if you’d like.
Successive means one right after another.
I believe my point on accuracy stands, especially since I still didn’t accuse you or name any specific person as being a conspiracy theorist.
Well, I’m sure you’re quite impressed with yourself. That much is obvious.
My father was doing some consulting work for some state police forces 50 years ago. Some senior cops shared great stories. A NYC captain said that he was following a directive to have his cops be less prejudicial and conclusory when talking to the media. One arrested the “alleged killer” or the “suspect” not “the killer”. Somehow they got the idea that sticking “alleged” in front of everything was the safe thing to do. He had to intervene when they started referring to the “alleged deceased.”
It gets really frustrating to be in this type of argument. Sometimes it’s best just to let the other side show their biases.
Oh FFS…
You can probably find reports that it was UFOs did it too.
Don’t be so gullible.
Here’s the thing – Challenger didn’t “blow up”.
A leak in one of the SRBs burned through the connecting strut and it impacted the External tank, causing the stack to go out of control, at which point aerodynamic forces tore it apart. It was after that happened that the failure of the tanks allowed the fuel to be consumed in a large fireball.
Reports? What do you mean by “report”?
The main people who are memory-holing the event are the ones who are inventing ever goofier conspiracy theories in an attempt to distract attention from the actual event and from any possible reforms.
The classic headline I saw was …
“The Shot Ignored Around the World”
I still find the story so bizarre. There is little to no info on this shooter’s family – no motives – social media reveals nothing except following events – and all this happens in little Butler………..No warnings – no nothing and a crowd having to point to the guy!
The world is bizarre. It’s as though nobody knew how to write a script for how history should unfold.
The FBI announced unequivocally that the shooter acted alone. They also announced that they hadn’t gotten into his cell phone yet, so one wonders how given the latter, they could be so certain of the former?
Whatever they are hiding, it is worse than the embarrassment of “not finding” (and likely scrubbing) his social media. I still love that Crooks was the child of two mental health professionals. And three encrypted overseas accounts is still intriguing. Some day there will be professional investigators in the federal government again. We’ll see then how good any scrubbing has really been.
Yeah, they haven’t accounted for the craftsmanship of the explosives Crooks was traveling with. Liars or incompetent?
Some FBI big-wig described the Trump rally as a “target of opportunity.” If a WWII fighter is flying back from beating up a German airfield and he spots a troop convoy or a freight train, that would be a target of opportunity – a target that wasn’t originally planned for but presents itself when the pilot is otherwise available to do some extra damage. Crooks obviously premeditated the attack. (He did so more effectively than the Secret Service premeditated the defense.) Government officials shouldn’t use terms they do not understand, or that are inappropriate for the situation.
Agreed. The correct term is “soft target,” like posted gun-free zones, schools, hospitals, and, most recently, Republican rallies under the ostensible protection of the Secret Service.
In context, “acted alone” means there wasn’t a second shooter on site.
It does not (necessarily) mean that nobody else had advance knowledge of his activity or helped him to plan it
Maybe just a spotter, or something.
It lacked specificity then.