With this most recent issue at the trump rally.

It's looking fair to say that the USSS failed in their duty. This resulted in one man murdered and two others severely wounded as a result. Civilians.

Is the Fed responsible for their medical bills, lost income, etc and the expenses for the family who lost their loved one?

What does the disclaimer on trump's campaign website say?

You attend at YOUR risk.

If you have medical insurance they will cover a lot of it. Most likely you will have to sue the SS. Don't forget the mental trauma that could be caused by what some saw.

The rally is for Trump’s benefit.

He should pay!

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
With this most recent issue at the trump rally.

It's looking fair to say that the USSS failed in their duty. This resulted in one man murdered and two others severely wounded as a result. Civilians.

Is the Fed responsible for their medical bills, lost income, etc and the expenses for the family who lost their loved one?

I never cease to be amazed how lawsuits and lawyers become popular with republicans when they're the ones thinking they got fucked over and somebody needs to be held to account.

Good luck suing the SS. They either have complete governmental immunity or damages will be significantly limited. In addition to the problem they'll have with a fact-finder putting 100% causation on the shooter.

The disclaimer on the website is legally meaningless AD.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
The rally is for Trump’s benefit.

He should pay!

His campaign is notorious for not reimbursing municipalities for extra costs they incur for security when he is in town so good luck with that. FWIW his campaign activities are NOT official government business.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
What does the disclaimer on trump's campaign website say?

You attend at YOUR risk.

If you have medical insurance they will cover a lot of it. Most likely you will have to sue the SS. Don't forget the mental trauma that could be caused by what some saw.

SS as a government entity is going to claim sovereignty immunity. The government by legislation has to consent to be sued.

This is just issue spotting. I am not able to brief this very complicated issue here.

The dead killers estate could be liable, but it is judgment proof.

Since, he got the rifle from dad one may have a theory of liability against the father. That being negligent failure to secure or negligence in loaning the firearm.

quote:

Since, he got the rifle from dad one may have a theory of liability against the father. That being negligent failure to secure or negligence in loaning the firearm.

And dad is a trumper. Bad boy for not having his weapon under control

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

quote:

Since, he got the rifle from dad one may have a theory of liability against the father. That being negligent failure to secure or negligence in loaning the firearm.

And dad is a trumper. Bad boy for not having his weapon under control

The kid supposedly borrowed his dad's rifle in the past in order to go to the range. If he returned it in a prudent manner each time and his dad suspected nothing different this time I think it would be difficult to call him negligent.

The father sold the rifle to the kid - or so he says.
Also, the neighbors said they have never seen any political signs in the yard and it is common for people to register as the opposing party to vote in their primaries so affiliation means zip.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
The father sold the rifle to the kid - or so he says.
Also, the neighbors said they have never seen any political signs in the yard and it is common for people to register as the opposing party to vote in their primaries so affiliation means zip.

Or some pranksters put them there to harass or bully the kid.

We just don’t have many real facts.

Certainly not enough to pass judgement at this point.

He registered R but donated D. Kind of offsets each other till more info is released.