Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania

Timeline, following the media, is at fault massively

The article currently follows media descriptions that Crooks had been on the roof for a long time and seen by the Secret Service Snipers already at 5:52, almost 20 minutes prior to the shooting. This raises the question why they did let Trump take the stage and why they did not do anything against Crooks - and this gives way to the (with that said, plausible!) conspiracy theory that the Secret Service had planned Trump's death. Also it raises the question why Crooks had a free sightline to Trump at the podium for some 8 minutes, and did not fire for no apparent reason.

While the New York Post is not my favorite quality medium, they seem to have the right timeline with Crooks entering the roof only at 6:09. Then everything makes sense: The Secret Service knew about a suspect, but they did not take him too seriously - and then it escalated quickly! Correcting the article in this regard seems to be top-priority and urgent. --KnightMove (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

See wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not hard to understand that this correct timeline is a sourced information. --KnightMove (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

See many conversations above about why and how this happened. By the way, that source says "Around 5:45 p.m. — 26 minutes before the shooting — the same Beaver County cop spotted Crooks a second time, now on the roof", I find no mention of 6:09. Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Then scroll down to the (and within the) timeline. The article was apparently not updated in the same way as the timeline, which now says:

"5:45 Crooks spotted scoping out roof A cop... sees Crooks eyeballing the roof od the AGR International building, which had a clear sightline to the podium..."

"6:09 Crooks scales roof Right around this time, Crooks climbed up onto the roof...."

And I had some look into the conversations above, and this topic has not been addressed yet - or can you show me where? --KnightMove (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This time line contradicts their own text, no wonder the NY post is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, also other and more prestigious media cover the correct timeline already, like the Financial Times here:

"6.05pm: As Trump began addressing the crowd, people outside the perimeter fence noticed Crooks. Greg Smith told the BBC he saw someone “bear-crawling up the roof” a few minutes into Trump’s speech and alerted police."

"6.09pm: Four minutes into the speech, Mike and Amber DiFrischia noticed Crooks and began recording him. DiFrischia told CNN his wife spoke to nearby police."

So let him be on the roof already a bit earlier than 6:09, but only minutes after Trump had opened his speech. Anyway our article does not cover at all yet that Crooks climbed onto the roof so closely before the shooting. --KnightMove (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This does not mention that law enforcement also saw him, it is not a complete time line. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

And that entitles you to ignore the source for what is written in their time line? Which sources now quoted in the timeline do give a "complete time line", from your point of view? --KnightMove (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it means you do not get to ignore all the other timelines (also provided by "the media", we go by what the majority say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"Following the media" i.e. sources, is kindof our thing. GMG^talk 14:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

When sources have published information on a confusing event which then turned out to be wrong by further research, it should be kindof our thing to get the facts straight. --KnightMove (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Only when published by a reliable secondary source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We're not in the fact-straightening business. —Alalch E. 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're making the strongest case when you lead off by saying you don't even really favor the reliability of the source you're referencing. GMG^talk 15:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: @Objective3000: @Alalch E.: @GreenMeansGo: So, let's have a look at the 'majority' of the sources Slatersteven referred to, and what they say compared to our article.

In the timeline table, our article currently states

"5:52 A member of the BCESU tactical team sees Crooks on a roof, notifies other security services, and photographs him, the second such incident. Secret Service snipers spot Crooks. Approximately a minute-and-a-half before the shooting, several members of the public report their own sightings to law enforcement officers."

There are six sources cited for this block of statements. The 5:52 time is written only on the ABC News source, which claims "5:52 p.m. Crooks was spotted on the roof by Secret Service", and the WDSU, which explicitly quotes ABC News. So, that's one source. We have not taken over ABC's claim that Crooks had been spotted by the Secret Service. Further, WDSU already qualifies the ABC News statement by writing "on the roof of a building". As you see, our article also qualifies by writing "a roof", not "the roof".

Of the other sources, the older Washington Post article explicitly adresses witnesses "at least 86 seconds before gunfire", not at earlier times. The other Washington Post article states "Guglielmi said that about 20 to 30 minutes before the shooting, local police ... warned the Secret Service security team by radio of a suspicious person with a golf range finder and backpack.", and "WPXI television news reported that the officer called in around 5:45 p.m. — 26 minutes before Crooks opened fire from the roof." The Washington Post does not write about Crooks being on "the roof" or "a roof" at an earlier time.

The BBC article states "A man with a rifle was seen on a rooftop minutes before shots..." based on an interview with witness Greg Smith. If you watch the video, Smith clearly says "...and probably five to seven minutes of Trump speaking, I'm estimating here, I've no idea, you know, but ... we noticed a guy crawling, erm, bear-crawling up the roof..." So, for over one week now we have the evidence reported by serious media that Crooks climbed on that roof only during the Trump speech, few minutes before firing.

I should not have written "following the media". My bad. Our timeline does not follow the media, it violates WP:SYNTHESIS, collecting different claims from different reports into what is a misleading and incomplete timeline.

Hopefully this is sufficient that you take the topic more serously. --KnightMove (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

PS: WDSU explicitly states "Around 6:10 p.m. — After rally-goers notice a man climbing on the top of the roof of a nearby building, a local law enforcement officer climbs to the roof, according to two law enforcement officials." So basically our timeline and the 5:52 claim is based on ONE outdated source, ABC News. --KnightMove (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

How many of thee sources were published within the last 5 days? Also these all tsalk about what the crowd saw, not what the police or federal officers saw., thus they are not complete chronologies (as has already been stated). Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Why hasn't the Wikipedia article timeline been corrected yet? All the referenced sources say that the shooter was photographed on the ground at 5:52pm (the photo also shows him on the ground). The FBI stated that the shooter climbed on the roof at 6:06pm. Wikipedia is citing only one source (ABC news) which contradicts the literally hundreds of news articles which place the shooter on the ground at 5:52pm.

In summary, the shooter is on the ground at 5:52pm but Wikipedia states in the timeline that he is on the roof. After 2 weeks of bickering in the talk section Wikipedia still shows the wrong information, disregarding hundreds of news articles, and quoting only one source. 58.84.204.69 (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is a more recent source, that does not only discuss what eye witnesses saw [[1]] and another [[2]] (which makes it clear its based on up dated information),. Slatersteven (talk)

Your first source, again, is ABC News, the only source to back up the claim as written. They repeat their scenario: "Officials said the snipers spotted the suspect, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, on the roof of a building outside the security zone at the rally Saturday in Butler, Pennsylvania, at 5:52 p.m. ET."

However your second source, BBC, does NOT back up that timeline. Here it is clearly different:

"Later, around 17:45 local time, Crooks was spotted again, this time by a counter sniper officer around (!) the Agr International building - the one the gunman later (!) scaled up to aim at Trump."

"By 17:52 - 19 minutes before the shooting - the Secret Service was made aware that Crooks was spotted (!) with a rangefinder, and disseminated that information to other officers on site, CBS reported."

So Crooks was spotted by a non-Secret Service counter-sniper at 17:45 AROUND the roof, not on it. By 17:52 the Secret Service got informed. BBC does not claim that they had spotted him, nor that he had been on the roof already.

This does not back up the ABC News claim "Secret Service snipers spotted Crooks on the roof at 5:52 p.m."., BBC clearly contradicts this.

The Associated Press Timeline, updated July 21, confirms that Crooks climbed on the roof around 6:09 p.m.

Further, there is no base in the rules to discredit witness accounts cited by reliable sources - and consistently so. --KnightMove (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Aren't there other important gaps in the timeline thus published? For example, Comperatore was killed shielding his family with his body (as reported). This event was recorded by thousands of devices. The precise time for each of the shots fired, and who fired them, must be known. How did Comperatore have enough time to react? Which of the bullets fired struck which victim? When were shots fired law enforcement? Given the science of accoustical forensics, all of this must certainly be known (except possibly the data regarding victims). I am not an editor on this article, but all this will be reported here once it is known? I am surprised that two weeks after the event these data are not widely known. -Roricka (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggested new part of timeline:

5:51 p.m.	The Pennsylvania State Police notifies the U.S. Secret Service of a suspicious person with a rangefinder on the ground.
5:52 p.m.	The Secret Service informs the counter-sniper team and response agents of a suspicious person. Secret Service countersnipers spot Crooks.

Uwappa (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

 Added, though without “ U.S.”. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 00:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Southern Sniper Team made the Shot

Change

Secret Service snipers were likely obstructed from being able to see Crooks as he crawled into a firing position due to the slant of the roof that Crooks was on, with the northern sniper team in particular having its line of sight obstructed by trees.

to

Secret Service snipers on the northern roof were obstructed from being able to see Crooks as he crawled into a firing position due to the slant of the roof that Crooks was on, with the southern roof snipers having to shoot instead.

CBS article confirms with federal officials that northern sniper team did not shoot. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Left guide (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partially implemented; the paragraph has changed significantly since this request was made, but I have added the source included in the request and updated some of the information in the article based on it. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 22:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

References

How is the fact that Trump was actually shot still being obfuscated?

This has got to stop. I am extremely disappointed by the offensively partisan conduct of a handful of very prolific editors, who I won't name but I don't have to. It was widely reported in RS that Trump was hit by a bullet, or at the very least that it substantially appeared that way. The NYT published an article where they had an FBI forensic specialist analyze the hi-res photo snapped by their photographer the day before of the "projectile" whizzing past Trump's ear and he concluded that it certainly seemed like a bullet and he didn't know what else it could be. The contrary claim, that we just don't know, is the fringe claim. We're pretty darn certain it was a bullet. The FBI just confirmed it was. Whoever is saying we "don't have evidence" is wrong. This has been a repeated problem on extended protection articles where long-time editors have all the control. Sysiphis (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I have been occasionally watching in case administrative action was needed. I know this topic is all over the above talk but please give examples of text to show what you mean. I think very recent edits have resolved the issue: "Trump was shot and wounded" is currently in the lead. I assume that is what you mean? Would anyone wanting to water that down please respond in this section with proposed text, reason, and source. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

No disagreement here, but to correct one thing: the Doug Mills photo capturing a bullet is surely of the second shot, and almost certainly not the one that hit Trump's ear—in the bullet photo and immediately after it, his hand is already reaching up to his ear, his face grimaced, while in the video his hand is still on the podium when the first shot rings out. As a forensics expert told the NYT, "He flinches, and his right hand already starts reaching for his right ear during that time between the first audible shot and the second audible shot." AbsoluteWissen (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sysiphis: Au contraire mon frère: If the FBI says "we don't know", and a newspaper hires someone who does an independent investigation and says "I think it was this", it makes no sense to pretend that the newspaper (or the dude hired by the newspaper) is the definitive arbiter of truth. The Secret Service and FBI have a lot more resources to investigate stuff like this. So until the USSS/FBI releases a statement saying they figured it out (as they have now) we have to follow WP:RS and not pretend like we already know something that is still under investigation by the FBI/USSS. Malachy Browne's opinion is just that, and if the FBI/USSS would disagree with Malachy we would have to follow WP:RS and the FBI/USSS would be considered "correct" because it is a far more reliable source (perhaps his opinion would be notable as someone who disagreed or made an incorrect guess). You should be disappointed by those who refuse to follow WP:RS. Polygnotus (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The FBI's statement doesn't say that "they figured it out". Rather, as this article correctly notes, the FBI's statement is that Donald Trump was struck by either a whole bullet or a fragment of a bullet, i.e., as the FBI's director said a few days earlier, by "shrapnel". Presumably there will eventually be a report from the FBI that gives their final assessment, but even then, it's possible they won't have come to a firm conclusion as to whether what struck Trump first was a whole or fragmented bullet (and if the latter, what caused it to fragment). NME Frigate (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Folks are always in such a hurry. Fortunately, the FBI takes its time as opposed to blurting out an answer, even when pressured (and attacked) by Congress. It's better to be correct than quick. Doubly true for an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

About the words "the Doug Mills photo capturing a bullet is surely of the second shot, and almost certainly not the one that hit Trump's ear—in the bullet photo and immediately after it, his hand is already reaching up to his ear, his face grimaced, while in the video his hand is still on the podium when the first shot rings out": There's no need for "almost". Look at how many degrees of arc across the view captured by that photo the bullet traversed in 1/8,000 second, and consider how many inches that suggests the bullet traveled in that period, and consider that Donald Trump had already raised his hand some inches from the lectern (not podium) in this photo, and ask yourself whether he could move his hand anywhere near that distance in so little time. The word "almost" requires us to consider it possible that a bullet that left the muzzle at, say, more than 3,000 feet per second and had traveled only about 400 feet, and then only grazed his ear, could (A) somehow then move only, say, one to two feet past Donald Trump's head in the time it took him to raise his arm from the lectern, and then (B) speed up again to make a streak covering so many degrees of arc in 1/8,000 second. Consider also that the bullet makes such a long streak during that 1/8,000-second exposure while his hand, which he was moving fast, appears frozen during such a short exposure. If we guess that the bullet's streak in the photo traverses six inches (and we ignore the fact that the bullet has length), then it means the speed of the bullet in that instant is 4,000 feet per second (after about 400 feet of deceleration); if it traverses six inches in that 1/8,000-second exposure and we even grant no deceleration up to that point, then just 1/100 second earlier it was 40 feet closer to the gun than it was at the time of the photo. Even when we account for the fact that not every part of the photo was captured at the same instant, that parts of it were captured tiny fractions of a second earlier than other parts, it is impossible for the bullet in the photo to be the one that caused him to raise his hand to his ear. The bullet that hit his ear didn't, after grazing his ear, then hover in mid air and wait for Doug Mills to get his camera ready while Donald Trump started raising his hand, and then accelerate so it could make a streak that long across a 1/8,000-second photo. President Lethe (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

July 27th, the FBI released a statement saying: "“What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject’s rifle," and this was then subsequently widely reported in the media. I added the NBC piece on it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

We know, see the section above. Polygnotus (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, "grazed" is the more accurate term, and its the wording that the recent NYT analysis uses, so we should probably go with that to clear up confusion. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The FBI report takes priority here. Does their report say grazed? 65.216.244.67 (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no FBI report, merely official memos regarding the event. They have not even released even their preliminary finding. We just summarize what top quality reliable sources say, such as the NYT. You can see photos of Trump's injury, and there's a tiny nick where the bullet graze him. Confusion seems to be people thinking it must have struck him dead center in the ear, and if they don't see it, then nothing happened. But it appears to have graze his ear causing a small wound. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"top quality reliable sources say, such as the NYT" We are using The New York Times for forensic or medical reports? It does not sound particularly reliable. What source is the newspaper citing?Dimadick (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Deputy FBI Director Paul Abbate Completely Contradicts His Boss Christopher Wray on Trump Bullet Wound Ambiguity

The Deputy FBI Director testified before Congress and said there was never any question that Trump was hit by a bullet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk6qS9mXYM0

Thoughts on this? Was Wray lying the entire time when he said that there is still a question about whether it was shrapnel/debris, or a bullet that hit Trump?

I think that more scrutiny needs to be put on any statements released by the FBI before they're included here.

Additionally, people here were keen on not including certain other information because they wanted to "wait for the investigation", but then jumped on trying to include the shrapnel/debris conspiracy theory, even when such a claim boldly flies in the face of reality.

We should add Christopher Wray's false claim to the "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" section. e.g.

"Director of the FBI Christopher Wray initially claimed that Trump may not have been hit by a bullet, and that flying shrapnel/debris may have been the cause of his ear injury. However, a plethora of sources and experts believed that Trump was shot, and this was eventually confirmed in a statement released by the FBI. Furthermore, Deputy FBI Director Paul Abbate testified before Congress that there was "no doubt, and never has been" in the FBI's mind that Trump was shot with a bullet, contradicting Wray's earlier claim."

MightyLebowski (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

We already have umpteen threads on this. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see any mention of these particular comments from Paul Abbate here. MightyLebowski (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

NO, but its still the same issues, was Trump shot. Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Wray did not say "debris," so why do you even introduce that? He said "bullet or shrapnel." The subsequent FBI statement said a bullet or bullet fragment. A bullet fragment is a form of shrapnel, so the FBI statement can be interpreted as clarifying what kind of shrapnel Wray was talking about. Sen. Tillis did not ask Abbate to distinguish between a bullet and a bullet fragment; he asked about ridiculous alternatives (namely: a space laser, a murder hornet, a sasquatch), so the exchange doesn't clarify the bullet vs. bullet fragment distinction. I strongly oppose adding Christopher Wray's "bullet or shrapnel" response to the "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" section. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Debris can be used to refer to shrapnel in the context of a bullet fragment, they're interchangeable terms. Abbate said outright that a bullet (not bullet fragment) hit Trump.

"A bullet", not "bullet fragment". That's literally what Abbate said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk6qS9mXYM0&t=41s

Sen. Kennedy (not Sen. Tillis) only asked about "space lasers" after asking the initial serious question.

I think we should include it. Wray was clearly being duplicitous. There was never any question that Trump was hit by a bullet. MightyLebowski (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It remains the case that Wray did not use the word "debris," and if you believe that "debris" and "shrapnel" are "interchangeable terms," there's even less reason to say "shrapnel/debris" since it "debris" would add nothing. My mistake about misidentifying Sen. Kennedy; I misinterpreted the name placards in front of them from the angle of the camera. I know what Abbate said. I also know what Wray said and what the FBI's statement said. You want to preference Abbate's statement over the other two. I do not. You want to interpret Abbate's statement as excluding a bullet fragment, when Kennedy never asked about that. I do not interpret it that way. Your personal opinion that "Wray was clearly being duplicitous" has no place on the page. The FBI released a statement, and unless/until they update it, it answers the question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't answer the question though, since WP:RS report conflicting accounts i.e. Abbate most recently saying it was always known that a bullet hit Trump, while others said it may have been shrapnel or debris (the FBI specifically used the word "debris" in the NYT reporting):

"The F.B.I. is examining numerous metal fragments found near the stage at a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., to determine whether an assassin’s bullet — or potential debris — grazed former President Donald J. Trump’s head, bloodying his ear, according to the F.B.I. and a federal law enforcement official."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/25/us/politics/fbi-bullet-trump-rally.html

There was never any question that it was debris, according to Abbate.

I don't see why you would hold one statement as more reliable than another, given that they all come directly from the FBI and reliable sources. Clearly there are conflicting accounts, and it is obvious now that it was a bullet, not shrapnel or debris, according to Abbate.

You're the one including your opinion when you try to attribute another meaning to exactly what Abbate said i.e. you claiming that Abbate may have meant that it was a bullet fragment, even though that's not at all what he said.

We are supposed to include what WP:RS says, not what you think they meant/should have said/would have said under different circumstances or questioning. MightyLebowski (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No, the FBI did not “specifically use[] the word ‘debris’”; it was introduced by the two NYT reporters, but the article does not quote the FBI using that word.

So far, you haven’t presented any WP:RS that substantiates “was Wray lying the entire time … We should add Christopher Wray's false claim to the ‘Misinformation and conspiracy theories,’” “the shrapnel/debris conspiracy theory,” “Wray was clearly being duplicitous.” Abbate was not asked and did not say that Wray’s testimony was false, that Wray lied or was duplicitous, that the possibility of a bullet fragment was a conspiracy theory, that Wray’s statement was misinformation; you seem to be inferring those things, but it’s not what Abbate himself said. Also, beware that some of your comments about Wray conflict with WP:BLPSTYLE, which applies to all information about living persons, on talk pages as well as articles. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"Debris" was introduced by two NYT reporters "according to the F.B.I. and a federal law enforcement official". Did you miss that part? Are you really denying the FBI said this when a WP:RS reports the FBI said it?

It's not inference, it's literally Abbate saying one thing, and Wray/FBI officials saying another. Regardless of why you think this conflicting information exists, those are conflicting statements from high level government officials on a major event, and it should be noted in the article.

Denying that Abbate said Trump was "hit with a bullet", or attributing different meaning to his words, conflicts with WP:BLP. MightyLebowski (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the two views are necessarily conflicting mostly because they have been reported at different times. Wray's statement was over ten days ago while Abbate's was just two days ago. With the investigation ongoing, opinions can change and new facts can emerge. Claiming that Wray "lied" or that his uncertainty is deceptive without proper coverage by WP:RS would violate WP:NPOV and as noted by the article's own sources, the mention of glass debris started around July 15, a week before Wray's hearing so he is obviously not the source of that information. Yvan Part (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The conflicting information isn't whether it was shrapnel or a bullet, but rather the fact that Abbate said there was "never any question" that a bullet hit Trump, whereas Wray said it was still in question. Never any question vs. in question, that's the conflict. This doesn't change with time, so if Abbate said the FBI never questioned a bullet hitting Trump, but Wray said there was still a question, then someone is factually incorrect, and the information is conflicting.

Also, I never said that Wray lied, but the information that he provided is not consistent with the statement released by the FBI, and the subsequent statement from Abbate. You may be confusing the word "lied" with "duplicitous", the former which alleges intent, while the latter does not.

WP:RS reported on the conflicting statements:

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/07/30/congress/no-doubt-trump-was-hit-by-bullet-00171861

I don't know why you mentioned the glass conspiracy theory. It has nothing to do with what Wray said.

Like I said, there's a plethora of sources to include the conflicting information in the article, and attribute Wray's statement as "misinformation". To be clear about what misinformation is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation

"Misinformation can exist without specific malicious intent."

MightyLebowski (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It is at best worth the addition of a small mention on the glass misinformation that is already only a single line in this article. We are hanging on the edge of WP:DUE for this article if we go into details about it as we would need to include Wray's statement, Abbate's statement, the subsequent FBI statement mentioned in the Politico article and the GOP reactions to all three of them to respect WP:NPOV. Yvan Part (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Like I said before, the glass misinformation angle has nothing to do with what Wray said. Here's a refined version:

"FBI Director Christopher Wray initially claimed that Trump may have been hit by shrapnel, rather than a bullet. Similarly, FBI sources told the NYT that flying debris may have been the cause of his ear injury. Republicans immediately criticized the FBI and Wray for expressing doubt that Trump was shot. A plethora of sources and experts believed that Trump was shot, and this was eventually confirmed in a statement released by the FBI. Additionally, FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate testified before Congress that there was "no doubt, and never has been" in the FBI's mind that Trump was shot with a bullet, contradicting Wray's earlier claim."

This absolutely should be included. It is a major piece of misinformation that needs to be documented. MightyLebowski (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No offense but it doesn't really look like a major piece of misinfo from my point of view. You're free to open a rfc about it if you think it's really that important and require additional opinions to reach consensus. Yvan Part (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but the notion that Trump wasn't shot is the big enchilada of misinformation. MightyLebowski (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, your claim was “the FBI specifically used the word ‘debris’ in the NYT reporting,” but the article does not quote the FBI using that word. Rather, the NYT reporters are the ones who “used the word ‘debris’” in their own description of what they were told.

Yes, things like “shrapnel/debris conspiracy theory” and “Wray was clearly being duplicitous” are inferences, not things that you've presented any WP:RS as saying.

Re: “those are conflicting statements … and it should be noted in the article,” that’s a long way from your original proposal that “We should add Christopher Wray's false claim to the ‘Misinformation and conspiracy theories’ section, e.g., [3 sentences of proposed text].” No one has voiced support for your original proposal. If you now want to propose more limited text about a potential conflict in a different section, you can.

I never “Den[ied] that Abbate said Trump was ‘hit with a bullet.’” so don’t suggest I did, and no, my actual statements that “the exchange doesn't clarify the bullet vs. bullet fragment distinction” and “I do not interpret it that way” do not conflict with WP:BLP. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

"but the article does not quote the FBI using that word. Rather, the NYT reporters are the ones who “used the word ‘debris’” in their own description of what they were told."

Distinction without a difference.

What Wray said is objectively misinformation based on its Wikipedia definition, but if you want to add it to another section that more people will agree with, then that's fine.

"Yes, things like “shrapnel/debris conspiracy theory” and “Wray was clearly being duplicitous” are inferences, not things that you've presented any WP:RS as saying."

I never wrote that in the excerpt, but those are reasonable conclusions from WP:RS, not inferences.

"my actual statements that “the exchange doesn't clarify the bullet vs. bullet fragment distinction”"

It's not our job to determine if something else was meant by someone's statement, or by what WP:RS report, but that's what you're doing here. MightyLebowski (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s the difference between knowing what words the FBI officer(s) and federal law enforcement official themselves used (a quote) vs. not knowing what words they themselves used (reporters’ description). I think that knowing vs. not knowing is a meaningful difference.

We do not know that Wray’s statement was misinformation, much less a conspiracy theory; we do know that it differs from Abbate’s. For all we know, it is Abbate who misspoke rather than Wray; after all, Wray’s statement is consistent with the official FBI statement (a fragment is a kind of shrapnel), and Abbate’s is not (unless we consider the possibility that by “a bullet” he was including both whole and fragment, as the official statement does). If there are quotes from any other FBI source, please say. Otherwise, all we have are potentially conflicting FBI statements, and WP:NPOV requires that we not come down on either side of it, especially since the FBI has not released an updated official statement. Do you want to propose a sentence for the Investigation section that notes the potential conflict between Wray's and Abbate's statements while abiding by WP:NPOV?

Some of your conclusions are inferences, and we disagree about whether they’re reasonable. And no, what I’m trying to do is check whether claims are true, false, known, or unknown. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you want to propose a sentence for the Investigation section that notes the potential conflict between Wray's and Abbate's statements while abiding by WP:NPOV?

Nothing I wrote in the misinformation write-up conflicts with WP:NPOV, but here is something that we can include in the Investigation section:

"On July 24, FBI Director Christopher Wray told Congress that it was an open question as to whether Trump was hit with a bullet. After his testimony, the FBI clarified that it was indeed a bullet, whether whole or fragmented, that hit Trump in the ear. Deputy FBI Director Paul Abbate testified before Congress on July 30 that there has never been any doubt about whether Trump was hit with a bullet, saying it was a bullet "100%", conflicting with Wray's earlier statement.

MightyLebowski (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You certainly haven’t been neutral here. You’ve said things like “was Wray lying the entire time,” “We should add Christopher Wray's false claim to the "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" section,” “Wray was clearly being duplicitous,” “shrapnel/debris conspiracy theory,” and “What Wray said is objectively misinformation.” You’re still calling it “misinformation.” You’re clearly taking Abbate’s statement as true and Wray’s as false, rather than simply noting that they conflict to some extent.

I’d like to separate out two different though related issues: (1) what struck Trump, and (2) what the FBI was investigating as possible objects that struck Trump / what there may have been questions about as they explored issue (1). (1) is already addressed in the article by the FBI’s PIO statement. Wray’s and Abbate’s testimony address both (1) and (2) to some extent. (2) was also addressed by the NYT article that you cited earlier, which is consistent with Wray’s statement and not with Abbate’s.

I prefer to let Wray and Abate speak for themselves. How about this, placed after the sentence about Rowe’s Senate testimony:

"There was some conflict in FBI Senate testimony about the FBI’s investigation of what wounded Trump, with FBI Director Wray stating on July 24 that “With respect to former president Trump, there’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear” (citation: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/07/26/fbi-donald-trump-shot-in-ear/74567255007/), and FBI Deputy Director Abbate stating on July 30 that “There is absolutely no doubt in the FBI’s mind whether former President Trump was hit with a bullet and wounded in the ear. No doubt, there never has been (your Politico citation)."

Or if that’s too long, just “There was some conflict in FBI Senate testimony about the FBI’s investigation of what wounded Trump, with FBI Director Wray stating on July 24 that there was some question about whether a bullet or shrapnel hit Trump’s ear (citation), and FBI Deputy Director Abbate stating on July 30 that there was never any doubt that a bullet had struck Trump’s ear” (citation). FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the shorter version sounds fine and can be included as your wrote it.

To be clear though, I never said Wray lied, but just posed the question, which is reasonable given the circumstances (a boss and deputy being at odds literally days apart, with the deputy saying what almost all of WP:RS reported from the beginning, which is that it was abundantly clear Trump was hit with a bullet).

Note that in the modern era, shrapnel is almost always used to refer to flying metal objects from bombs, not bullets or bullet fragments/ricochets/other flying material or debris from bullet impacts. Wray's statement barely makes any sense when referring to 5.56 rounds. Using bizarre language out of context is concerning, especially when it comes from the head of a major investigative agency in the United States. MightyLebowski (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added the text. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't play detective, but summarize reliable sources like NBC, ABC, CNN Newswire, AP, etc. Some people seem really hellbent on trying to prove that Trump was never injured by a bullet grazing him, when the reliable sources are unanimous in saying he received an injury from a bullet. So until the sources change, nothing in the article changes. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Refusal to use drone by Secret Service per New York Times

I inserted this edit which Slatersteven reverted with the summary edit "maybe i am not seeing the full artigcel[sic] I I see nothing about drones not being used". I copied the relevant paragraphs in his talk page, to which he asked that I put the edit as discussion in this talk page.

Please discuss my addition The Secret Service did not accept offers to use a drone to support their surveillance at the Butler rally site, says New York Times with this source:

Also Slatersteven try to read the full article, maybe it is behind some paywall, either way others can confirm that the text is authentic.Forich (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC) Forich (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The article in question is indeed paywalled, and the text in question is indeed hidden from the peasants. Here's an archive.is version: https://archive.is/20240801181507/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/01/us/politics/secret-service-technology-trump.html Marcus Markup (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I will now add, I also decided to look for other sources (one source should not be enough ti put it in our words, and I hope you are about to see why) [[3]] "Whistleblower Alleges Secret Service Rejected Requests to Use Drones to Secure Trump Rally" [[4]] "Secret Service refused police offer of drone before assassination attempt: Whistleblower". Its an allegation, not a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

At 1:09:45 of video of hearing 30 July

The Secret Service could not use their drone system at 3 p.m. due to cellular bandwidth problems. Uwappa (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Summing up: we have three sources: 1) New York Times, reliable source; 2) Washington Examiner, "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply", and 3) the direct feed of the Senate Hearing on Youtube, which we can not use per the Youtube policy. I propose a phrasing of attribution to the New York Times, which is similarly phrased by The Guardian. Let's work it here in the talk page before inserting it in the article.Forich (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

", according to the report in the New York Times,", no issue with attributing it to the NYT, we just can't say its a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Per RSPYT, if the content is from a verified official account, then it has the potential to inherit their level of reliability. A direct feed of the Senate on the official United States Senate account might be citable. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That is neither the official "account" of the US government or the FBI. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit proposal: According to the report in the New York Times, the Secret Service did not accept offers to use a drone to support their surveillance at the Butler rally site.Forich (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If we must. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Secret Service not having radio access

According to the acting director of the Secret Service today, there may have been radio traffic from local police that the Secret Service didn't have access to that could’ve proved crucial to stopping former President Donald Trump from going on stage the day of the assassination attempt.

I think someone should put this into the article: https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-shooting-probe-secret-service-access-radio-traffic/story?id=112522100

The story is about him lamenting about how things could have been different if only they had had proper communications. A regular Sherlock Holmes, that guy, eh? Anyway, I see no benefit to further gunking up the article with lame excuses from the USSS unless they are particularly noteworthy... this is simply par for the course. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Washington Post has transcript of radio transmissions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/08/03/trump-rally-police-radio-transmissions/ Uwappa (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The Washington Post is rapidly becoming one of my least favorite "go-to" reliable sources due to their obnoxious habit of presenting to free users one thing, and pay users another. Either block people, or don't... their habits are causing repeated confusion among editors. Here is the complete version they try to block from people who are freeloading: https://archive.is/20240803122843/https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/08/03/trump-rally-police-radio-transmissions/ Marcus Markup (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It's crazy how anyone in the media can claim that the USSS "lost sight" of Crooks when he was so close, at a vantage point, and could be seen with the naked eye, including by multiple bystanders. MightyLebowski (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

MAybe we just need a brief paragraph on the many (alleged) security failures. Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

List security failures in chapter Criticism of security arrangements? Sources:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/01/us/politics/secret-service-technology-trump.html
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/butler-rally-first-trump-event-of-2024-with-secret-service-snipers-officials-say/
• https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/trump-shooting-security-failure-secret-service-rowe-rcna164654

Uwappa (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Female agents

"...female agents serving in Trump's security detail faced scrutiny, especially after the release of video showing one of the agents struggling to holster her weapon, and crouching behind Trump. Trump defended the female secret service agent against the backlash and commended her bravery." This wording seems to conflate at least two different female agents. Trump praised the agent who shielded him as he was escorted off stage. The agent who later fumbled with her gun was not the same person. (The "shielder" had her hair in a bun, the "fumbler" did not.) Actually, I think the "fumbler" was the same one photographed crouching behind Trump at one point. Muzilon (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

In the last sentence, I changed "the female secret service agent" to "a female secret service agent," so the last sentence quoted no longer refers to the woman at the end of the previous sentence. Or perhaps you'd prefer a slightly stronger change, such as "one" instead of "a"? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Crooks ALLEGEDLY shot 8, not PROVEN yet.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alleged is not a theory when it concerns LEGAL standing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Extended content

How does the term alleged yield 'closed topic'? I have not introduced any theory. Legally, Crooks has not been declared guilty in a court of law, therefore the charges are alleged. Can a one shooter verdict be rendered while legitimate questions exist? I have not introduced a theory, I introduced legal standing. Is this legal position now to be suppressed in the US? AS A TWENTY YEAR VETERAN I OBJECT STRENUOUSLY TO THIS CENSORSHIP! No theory has been introduced in this discussion. Edadc (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC) This post was regarding whether Crooks shot all eight shots. Since the investigation is incomplete and the FBI seems confused by basic information, robust discussion is warranted by WE THE PEOPLE! Edadc (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC) None of what you're saying makes sense. We are not a court of law. You are not an injured party with "legal standing". There is no legal theory here and your veteran status is irrelevant here. There is no censorship as Wikipedia is not the government. There is no discussion to be has as Wikipedia is not a forum. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Ludicrous statement. Is the government the only entity that can censor??? And legal standing does exist.. Edadc (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC) @Edadc What legal standing? Again, this isn't court and "legal standing" has no meaning when discussing articles. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC) Sorry, parsing fact from wp does not help the case. Wp stated Crooks fired 8 shots, simply unproven..hence the term alleged. 'Alleged' does not convict. Wp is certainly not a court, therefore you bolster my point. They render a statement as if factual, when it is not. If it is *proven*, then it becomes fact. This is simple. Edadc (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC) Articles influence what Americans believe. Articles should be true (alleged would render this 'article' accurate). It is alleged that Crooks shot 8 times, maybe he did. The investigation has not introduced proof. Therefore 'alleged' is proper to insert in the article. This is not rocket science. My legal standing in the matter could come with litigation if the investigation proved this article overstepped legal boundaries. Lawsuits over false information yield plaintiffs, many plaintiffs can come from this one issue. 'Alleged' would prevent such a case from presentation. Articles have consequences, one is dead, three injured by shooters or a shooter. This article could harm due process, investigation, and millions of Americans directly and indirectly. Wp should be More respinsible. 'Alleged' would solve all of these issues. More shooters could be emboldened by irresponsible reporting, and stating unproven things as if factual. Does wp consider that? Do you? Do you care? 'Alleged' is the responsible thing to do, until the investigation is completed, and real facts are revealed. Edadc (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC) I already gave you the article to the Washington Post where they had four experts list to the audio and determine that ten shots were fired. We know that a Butler County officer fired a shot and that a Secret Service agent fired a shot. We know that the remaining eight shots sounds similar to each other and thus are believed to have come from the shooter. We also have video footage from some of those at the rally that supports this. For the rest of your comments: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Washington Post? Not a COURT. NOT A INVESTIGATIVE UNIT. BUT certianly published many false slanderous stories too numerous to cite here. Edadc (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC) Well, if you care to kindly cease from WP:SHOUTing and bringing up your unrelated qualifications, then maybe there would be a very small chance someone feels like listening to you. TheWikiToby (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Easy. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Sorry to just barge into the conversation, but I don't really see why you're making such a big deal about this. Sure, it may not have been authoritatively confirmed by the FBI or some other government agency that Crooks fired eight shots, but as Super Goku V said earlier, all the information we have so far certainly leads to such a conclusion, so much so that several reliable... well, mostly reliable sources are currently treating it as fact. And for Wikipedia, that's enough. If you're still going to harp on this, another option which I feel would be more reasonable is in-text attribution ("According to the Washington Post, the New York Times, USA Today, et cetera, Crooks fired eight shots...") but I don't speak for my fellow Wikipedians on that one. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC) One dead, three injured, including a former POTUS. *That* is a big deal. 'Information we have so far' does not equal fact. 'Alleged' solves the dilemma, why is that objectionable. If you were a defendant would you say it isn't a big deal? Edadc (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC) But in the absence of concrete facts, they're nearly always treated as such. I mean, isn't that practically what science is? ZionniThePeruser (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "By asking "Can a one shooter verdict be rendered," you are, in fact, introducing a conspiracy theory that there may have been more than one shooter; there are no "legitimate questions" about this. Crooks is dead, so there will be no charges, much less a trial and a guilty verdict. Yours is not a legal position; it's rhetorical one, and it's time to drop it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC) wrong. In order to introduce a theory, I would Have To Introduce A Theory. My statements come from a legal standpoint, which Americans are entitled to Constitutionally. Wp is irresponsible to state something as fact which simply is not. Biased newspaper rags do not constitute fact .sorry, not sorry. I don't drop things because someone orders me to. Btw, are there legitimate questions regarding the Kennedy assassination? If so, then there are likewise legit questions here. Why would people want those questions dismissed?? There are several professional opinions out there which suggest the case regarding Crooks is not a closed one, therefore it is not **legally** closed. Is wp outside the legal jurisdiction of the Constitution? As a vet who defended that Constitution, I can tell you no, they are not. Edadc (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC) See wp:or, we go by what wp:rs says, they say he was the shooter, and the only shooter. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC) In an incomplete investigation, that is 'drinking flavor aid' Edadc (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC) For what it's worth, Encyclopædia Britannica's online article on the incident states that "Crooks fired several shots..." without mentioning a number. 2601:6C1:C001:7DE0:74F1:C9FB:D9D8:D21 (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timeline allegedly inconsistent

Although unusable as a source, being a Youtube channel, this "Peak Prosperity" channel put up a detailed analysis of the official timeline that allegedly points out inconsistencies. The analysis can be found here and I only bring it here so that we can use it as an exercise of double checking every timestamp and event to bulletproof the,. Please watch and discuss if there is any merit on pursuing fixes to the Wikipedia timeline. Otherwise I plan on extracting the main points myself later. Forich (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Questions about actions of officers should be answered by

1. the FBI, who is interviewing officers
2. a new Senate hearing where officers testify under oath.

Any news on any of those two? Uwappa (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I would not we go by RS, not some bloke on the internet. Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Calm down, I fully agree with you on sticking with official and reliable sources. The video does mention possible internal inconsistencies of the timeline, which we could use if they are due to some unaccountaded update in the timeline, some version being officialy deprecated, a lapsus linguae during the hearing that got past the news report of it, etc. Here are the factual points the video questions:

1. The location of the picnic table referred in some texts may be contradictory (in some texts seems to refer to a place that could be seen as different in later texts)
2. The Sheriff's statement to the Washington Post retracted or asked for clarification that the officer hoisted onto the roof saw Crooks but did not encountered him "face to face". The sheriff also corrected WaPo by saying he could not know if the rooftop encounter happened precisely "seconds before the gunman opened fire".
3. The AGR building had a team of snipers assigned to be posted there, and it could be confusing who notified who about Crooks? In some accounts AGR-stationed snipers notify the rest about Crooks, while other sources say that they were NOTFIED that Crooks was lurking around the building.
4. The ESU Snipers assigned to AGR were: i) initially three in number; ii) one left the position at 4:27 pm; iii) second left the position at 6:05 pm; iv) the last one left the position at 6:06 pm. The last 2 exit movements of snipers are then happening AFTER Trump's entered the stage which obviously requires us to double-check that in the latest and best official reliable source we have, otherwise it seems not logical if the main purpose of the snipers was to watch from a higher ground DURING the speech.

Please comment on whether our timeline in Wikipedia is solid regarding these specific points.Forich (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The timeline is up to date with current knowledge. The questions are valid and local officers should be able to answer them when interviewed by FBI or a Senate hearing.

• As far as I know the FBI has interviewed local officers but not reported yet about results.
• I do not know about a new congress hearing yet.

From another of his videos: the security plan as made public by Senator Grassley: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/butler_esu_djt_fpotus_detail_plan_redacted.pdf See

• page 2 AGR building location for local snipers
• page 10 QRF team (4 to 6 Operators)-Responsible for a lone Active Attack/Shooter on/off site.
• page 11 AGR buildings not on the map, not an important sector for security
• page 12 unclear if snipers should be inside AGR building or on top of its roof
• page 40 AGR buildings outside security sectors
• page 42 AGR buildings outside security sectors.

Uwappa (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

1. What picnic table? As far as I can tell, neither of the words "picnic" nor "table" are in the article.

2. My personal opinion is that Butler County officials are not reliable regarding the shooting. There have been issues with the various statements since the 15th. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Juicy update from CNN

Edit away fellow editors: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/08/politics/police-body-cam-video-trump-shooting/index.html Forich (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably OR, but the thing that sticks out to me in that video is that body camera "BWC2-122110" doesn't have the time set properly. It doesn't seem possible that there would be gunfire at 18:12:04.

That said, is there anything we can use in this to update the article in any way? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I've included the CNN citation with the BBC's. kencf0618 (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Some other bits we could consider:

• Per BBC: They [the body and dashboard footage] capture moments of frustration, confusion and miscommunication in the moments before and after the assassination attempt.
• Per New York Times: The footage gives more clarity about the movements of nearby law enforcement officers with respect to previous releases of data.
• NYT: The footage shows that, from around 6:09 p.m to about two and a half minutes later, at least four Pennsylvania law enforcement officers were focused on the roof from where Mr. Crooks fired and its inmediate surroundings.Forich (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Another update from CNN at https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/10/politics/snipers-detail-breakdowns-trump-assassination-attempt-invs/index.html with some details that are not in the timeline yet:

1. ... he and other snipers were assigned to be inside the AGR building and directed to several windows on the second floor with a view of the entry area to the rally grounds and the stage where Trump would speak. A Butler sniper leader who met Nicol and his partners at the AGR building told them their mission was to look out those windows and scan the area for threats, Nicol said. They were instructed to remain covert. They set up their rifles on tripods so that the barrels were a foot or two inside the open windows to prevent them from being seen from outside.
2. “Units be advised internet and cell service is down,” an officer is heard saying at 5:48 p.m. on Butler’s radio. A minute later, a sheriff’s deputy radioed. “Your picture is probably not going to go through because I don’t have any service,”
3. Video discovered by the FBI shows Crooks pulling himself onto the roof of the AGR building at around 6:06 p.m. Shortly thereafter, a local law enforcement officer reported over the radio, “Someone’s on the roof. I have someone on the roof with white shorts.” A Butler supervisor then passed the information to the Secret Service command post at 6:09 p.m., according to the transcript obtained by the Post. The Hercules snipers covering Trump from above and behind the stage then turned to face the AGR property to the north.

Uwappa (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

References

How is the fact that the trump fist pump photo is not shown in the article?

Can it at least be shown somewhere? It is one of the most historic photos in presidential history. The photo has already become inescapable. You’ve undoubtedly seen it: It is in newspapers, in memes, on T-shirts. Former President Donald Trump, surrounded by Secret Service agents, face streaked with blood, raising a fist into the sky. A man defiant in the face of potential death. Can someone add it back to this article? Any reason not to is absolutely ridiculous and biased. Source as well: https://www.vox.com/culture/360711/trump-fist-pump-photo-explained-expert-media-savvy-politics https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/republicans-back-trump-by-sharing-a-bloody-photo-of-the-former-president-00167980 2603:8001:B5F0:8370:DDA4:E6F8:8C9D:2AD1 (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:GETTY number 6, using [A fair use] image to illustrate an article passage about the image [is unacceptable] if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image).

The article about the image is already linked in this article. It's not that hard for a reader to scroll a bit and click. TheWikiToby (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Any reason not to is absolutely ridiculous and biased. Alternatively, we are using a copyrighted photo on a separate article about the image and are abiding by our NONFREE policy by not using it here. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Presumptive Nominee?

Trump is not the presumptive nominee, he is the official nominee of the Republican party. Can this be corrected in the article? 67.145.228.45 (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

He was the presumptive nominee at the time of the assassination attempt. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

On July 13, 2024, Trump was not yet the GOP's official nominee. He did not become so until July 19, 2024, at the GOP Convention. This article pertains to events that occurred prior to the convention. General Ization ^Talk 01:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)