Loading...
Loading...
Browse all stories on DeepNewz
VisitWhere will the security lapse that allowed the Trump shooting incident be identified?
Washington, D.C. • 25%
New York City • 25%
Florida • 25%
Other • 25%
Official report or announcement from the U.S. Secret Service or other government sources
Secret Service Investigates How Gunman Got Close to Shoot and Injure Trump
Jul 14, 2024, 10:21 AM
The U.S. Secret Service is conducting an investigation into how a gunman was able to get so close to shoot and injure former President Donald Trump. The incident has raised significant questions about the security measures in place to protect high-profile individuals. The investigation aims to determine the lapses in security protocols that allowed the gunman to come so close to killing Trump.
View original story
Secret Service • 25%
Local law enforcement • 25%
Event organizers • 25%
No one held responsible • 25%
Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle • 25%
Local Law Enforcement • 25%
Trump's Campaign Team • 25%
Other • 25%
Lack of coordination among security agencies • 25%
Insufficient security personnel • 25%
Failure in intelligence gathering • 25%
Other • 25%
Private security firm • 25%
Trump International Golf Club staff • 25%
Local law enforcement • 25%
Other • 25%
Secret Service oversight • 25%
DHS procedural lapses • 25%
FBI intelligence failure • 25%
Other • 25%
Human error • 25%
Technical failure • 25%
Insufficient resources • 25%
Other • 25%
Secret Service • 25%
FBI • 25%
Local law enforcement • 25%
Shared blame • 25%
Secret Service • 25%
Local Law Enforcement • 25%
FBI • 25%
Other • 25%
Kimberly Cheatle • 25%
Secret Service Agency • 25%
Event Organizers • 25%
Other • 25%
Human Error • 25%
Insufficient Security Measures • 25%
Intelligence Failure • 25%
Other • 25%
Local law enforcement • 25%
Federal agencies (FBI, DOJ) • 25%
Private security • 25%
Unknown or other • 25%
Communication gaps • 25%
Technical difficulties with drones • 25%
Lack of diligence • 25%
Complacency among agents • 25%
Yes • 50%
No • 50%
Yes • 50%
No • 50%
Human Error • 25%
Other • 25%
Insider Compromise • 25%
System Failure • 25%