dmallord
Humble Hobbit
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2020
- Posts
- 5,418
I do dismiss it.I wouldn’t dismiss the idea that the “shooter” was a patsy.
If someone convinces you to climb a roof with a rifle and take a shot at the President, you don’t just bypass your survival instinct. Fear, consequences, and the certainty of being gunned down aren’t abstract ideas; they don't disappear or flow out of mind. Even the easily influenced usually hesitate at the edge of a death sentence.
Historically, the idea of a “patsy” gets tossed around whenever public trust breaks down—like with Oswald after JFK’s assassination. Sure, he said he was a patsy, but even in that case, the evidence pointed to motive, planning, and action. To be a true patsy—manipulated into doing someone else’s dirty work without knowledge or intent—is rare, and almost impossible to prove without someone from the inside stepping forward.
So no, I don’t buy it. The psychology doesn’t line up, and neither does history.
