FBI says Trump struck by bullet or its fragment; Assassination Attempt Investigations
- Thread starter CFordUNC
- Start date
- Replies: 105
- Views: 1K
1moretimeagain
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 278
I’m thankful the FBI had an investigative breakthrough in the 24 hours after the FBI director said it may not have been a bullet.
Has Dr Ronny Johnson ruled out the possibility that the top of the ear was indeed blown off, but Trump is capable of regeneration?
Has Dr Ronny Johnson ruled out the possibility that the top of the ear was indeed blown off, but Trump is capable of regeneration?
The majority doesn't say that didn't happen. But, when the director made that statement and then had to be corrected the next day, it doesn't quite give confidence in him. Why did he even make that statement? It wasn't part of any question. He just offered it up on a whim. But, again, I don't kniw anyone that says those things didn't happen.
CFordUNC
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,794
I hear you. Admittedly, it is a very far right fringe crackpot conspiracy theory about Sandy Hook and Parkland. I am certain that the overwhelming vast majority of conservatives, Republicans, and Trump supporters don’t actually believe it. My statement was more tongue in cheek than anything.
I’m not really invested one way or the other as to whether or not it was a bullet or shrapnel that injured Trump. I am way more concerned that in the year 2024 an American presidential candidate was within a quarter inch of being assassinated. Even if he had been completely missed and completely uninjured, it would have been horrific that the attempt was even made on his life.
That said, the Trump campaign could very, very, very easily put an end to any speculation whatsoever simply by releasing a medical report from the attending physician in the emergency department at the local hospital where he was treated. That is something that the American public should have the ability to know what happened to a person who is potentially our next president, how he was treated, etc. if Trump was indeed hit by a bullet, you would think they would have no problem whatsoever releasing a medical report that affirms that he was hit by a bullet, right? The secrecy is what is so puzzling.
The FBI is saying that shrapnel IS a bullet (just pieces of it).
So, it is not an either/or. Trump could have been hit by shrapnel, it is just that it is shrapnel of a bullet. The FBI is postulating that Trump was either grazed by an intact bullet or else he was grazed by a piece of bullet shrapnel. Either way, it was a "bullet" that made contact with him.
So, it is not an either/or. Trump could have been hit by shrapnel, it is just that it is shrapnel of a bullet. The FBI is postulating that Trump was either grazed by an intact bullet or else he was grazed by a piece of bullet shrapnel. Either way, it was a "bullet" that made contact with him.
Right. I have been thinking for days that most people were using the word shrapnel wrong. By definition of the word shrapnel, it is fragments of something that exploded. So, the bullet. I just don't know what would have made it fragment if there was an unobstructed straight line of site from the shooter. What could it have hit and fragment the bullet? What most people have been describing as shrapnel is actually debris. They have been saying "shrapnel" and then talking about wood or glass. And like I said many times in the last 2 weeks, does it really matter?
It couldn't have been anything other than bullet material because the pictures show no damage to anything close enough to have flown off and hit him.
In regards to releasing medical reports, I think they have been released. Just in statements. Seems like I remember a statement from the ER right after it happened.
- Messages
- 133
Count me as someone who thinks these distinctions are silly BUT it seems to me that you were the one misusing the term shrapnel when you assert that the FBI corrected Wray when they, in fact, did not. Saying he was struck by a bullet or fragment of a bullet is not a correction. It is an elaboration of the same thing that Wray said when stating Trump was struck by a bullet or shrapnel, is it not?
superrific
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,015
I have been using shrapnel the way you say is wrong. I'm not sure it is wrong, though it is certainly not the most common usage. Yes, shrapnel often refers to pieces of a grenade or an artillery shell. But, in a nailbomb, it also refers to the nails, which aren't fragments -- they are metal inside the bomb.
The dictionaries I've seen aren't really clear on this point. They refer to metal objects that fly through the air after an explosion "and are intended to hurt people." That doesn't really tell us whether the metal pieces have to be contained in the original bomb. For instance, suppose a person is standing in a hardware store, in the nails section. If I throw a bomb, and the person gets hit by a nail, wouldn't that be shrapnel? Or if you're in a tank, and I fire an anti-tank missile that destoys your tank, and you are injured by a piece of metal from the tank that gets lodged in your body. Shrapnel, right?
You say the correct word is debris. I was saying "shrapnel or debris" for a while before shortening it to shrapnel. But debris doesn't have a violent connotation. We think of debris as stuff that is laying around after something breaks. There was debris in the water where the Baltimore bridge collapsed, for instance. Obviously words can have multiple meanings, let alone multiple connotations, but still I think "debris" would be confusing to a lot of people. I could be wrong about that.
Duke Mu
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 197
The heat (friction between the bullet and air) of a very narrowly passing bullet could induce the superficial damage and capillary bursting/bleeding. If the intact bullet had made physical contact, half of his ear would have been blown off and he would have a concussion. Probably loss of hearing. Shrapnel from a bullet with lexx mass and traveling at a much lower velocity is indeed possible.
Duke Mu
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 197
all of the above including fragments of a bullet = shrapnel.
You're right. I used that word wrong the last 2 weeks because I just went with the flow of almost everyone else using it to mean something other than a bullet just to not argue over it. Most people using that word almost always coupled it with glass and rare instances, wood. So, I just went along with the context people were creating. My bad.
And maybe "corrected" is not exactly correct either, but maybe clarified. But he did cause a firestorm when he said that and by him saying "there is some question" created some confusion that caused lawmakers and the media to request the "clarification." The next day they clarified what he said to say, “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.” Not glass or something else.
I don't disagree with any of this really. That's why I didn't really argue the point and just went with the flow.
I wouldn't call glass or wood cause from the bullet, "shrapnel." I would call it debris and those were the most common things people were saying hit his ear. Especially the first week.
Again that's arguing over something that really doesn't matter. The extent of the injury doesn't really matter either. He was VERY close to dying from the assassin and that is what is important and EVERYONE agrees with that!
CallMeTyler
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 353
Has anyone questioned if he was actually under fire from the shooter? That was always obvious.
He's ridiculed because he wore an oversized bandage for an injury that wasn't visible with the naked eye and he did it to gain sympathy and boost his message that he "took bullets for America".
That fist pump photo doesn't hold quite the weight his followers wanted it to.
- Messages
- 967
You perfectly put this how I've been thinking about it. Combined with your love of Buttigieg, you're rocketing up my list of best poster.
And that's before taking into account your avatar of the great Goldblum.
- Messages
- 133
I think we all agree with that, but it seems overwhelmingly important to Trump that it was a bullet, not a fragment, not shrapnel. He's not satisfied unless everyone capitulates that he was struck by a bullet, which given what we know of the injury is probably more dubious than the word shrapnel.
CallMeTyler
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 353
You're too kind - I'm just happy to be a part of this community and participate on this forum to which you've expertly crafted.You perfectly put this how I've been thinking about it. Combined with your love of Buttigieg, you're rocketing up my list of best poster.
And that's before taking into account your avatar of the great Goldblum.
And totally agree on the great JG. Jeff is an American icon
heelinhell
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 385
I don't care whether it was a bullet, a bullet fragment, or broken glass.
I want the medical report to be released informing the public the nature of the injury, the treatment that was required , and the prognosis for Trump's recovery.
Does anybody have a problem with releasing the medical report other than Trump and his campaign handlers ?
I want the medical report to be released informing the public the nature of the injury, the treatment that was required , and the prognosis for Trump's recovery.
Does anybody have a problem with releasing the medical report other than Trump and his campaign handlers ?
superrific
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,015
I admit that I wouldn't ever consider wood to be shrapnel, though on the definition I was using it could technically apply. On the other hand, wood as shrapnel would surely arise rarely. It wouldn't get shattered so easily and the wood would only be harmful if it landed in a certain way.
Glass, yes, I would say that was shrapnel and now we are getting into edge cases.
I think this is a set of distinctions of importance to military analysts and forensic investigators and not to the rest of us.