Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

hlthe2b

(114,381 posts)

2. I thought they claimed the assailant fired a shotgun. Shotgun pellets from the latter are obviously

Reply to highplainsdem (Original post)

Tue Apr 28, 2026, 10:28 PM

Tuesday

going to be quite different from a single bullet hitting a Kevlar protective vest. That should be obvious simply based on visual inspection. So, if my understanding is correct, then they are covering up that the assailant did not hit the agent and it would have to be friendly fire. I get that the latter part of the investigation would be time consuming, but excluding the assailant would probably be in evidence already.

If I heard incorrectly, then I stand corrected. But, this is what I understood to be the current status.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

SheltieLover

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mueller, She Wrote: Can they really not find the bullet, or are they hiding it because they don't want to admit it was [View all] highplainsdem Tuesday OP

Honey, wake up, a new Magic Bullet Theory just dropped... RockRaven Tuesday #1

I thought they claimed the assailant fired a shotgun. Shotgun pellets from the latter are obviously hlthe2b Tuesday #2

The most convincing theory of the Kennedy assassination CanonRay Tuesday #3

My understanding was the suspect fired buckshot MerryBlooms Tuesday #4

If they have a choice... lame54 Tuesday #5