Ballistics experts analyze the shooting that nearly killed Donald Trump

Many Internet users are surprised that the shooter behind the assassination attempt against Donald Trump only hit the former president’s ear, suggesting that he may have intentionally missed his shot. This is one conspiracy theory among others, which ballistics experts do not believe.

“I don’t“Don’t believe it, it’s fixed. A small wound on the ear, don’t be fooled.” What is more conducive to conspiracy theories than an assassination attempt on a former president? The attack on Donald Trump on Saturday, July 13, gave rise to numerous conspiracy messages, or at least to serious doubts about the official version.

“Fake Blood”, “staging”, “cut” of Joe Biden or the Secret Service… Whether it is Donald Trump’s supporters or his opponents, we are witnessing a questioning of the official version, with, among other things, this question that comes up again: how could the shooter have missed his target? Franceinfo interviewed several legal experts in ballistics who are formal: at this distance, “aiming precisely at the ear is not possible.”

According to initial information released by US authorities, Thomas Matthew Crooks, the 20-year-old assailant who shot Donald Trump before being killed, was armed with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. The young man fired several shots from the roof of a building located about 150 meters from the Republican presidential candidate. “I’m a pretty good shot, at 200 meters I kill 100%”confides a ballistics expert located in Île-de-France and accustomed to shooting.

The three experts interviewed by franceinfo and who requested anonymity confirm that in theory, a shot at this distance is not difficult. “At about 130 meters, especially with this type of ammunition, it’s not very complicated to aim at an area that is 30 to 40 cm”adds another ballistician from Gironde.

But all temper their remarks in the same sense: “It depends on who is behind the gun and the conditions of the shooting.” “Maybe the gun was not adjusted, maybe he was a little nervous. When you are about to shoot a former president, you can be a little nervous,” judge an expert.

Even though the AR-15 is “a very classic weapon”, “very ergonomic”, “either he lacked training and was new to using the weapon, or if he used it regularly he wasn’t very good at it.”believes the Girondin expert. He immediately takes care to specify that“There is indeed a difference between sport shooting where you shoot lying down, with your weapon on a support, with a paper target that is fixed and in a situation that does not generate stress. There are many parameters that come into play.”

Among these parameters, a ballistics expert from Yonne puts forward that of the wind. “You have a projectile that weighs 3.5 grams, with the wind, this projectile over 150 meters can be destabilized and moved on its trajectory.” And he slightly tempers his colleagues’ analysis:

“It’s far from easy to hit someone who’s moving. There’s nothing easier than missing a target.”

a ballistics expert from Yonne

to franceinfo

So could the shooter have “purposely” aimed only at Donald Trump’s ear? “Aiming precisely at the ear at the distance in question, that’s not possible, so the conspiracy theories saying that he was only aiming at the ear to make Donald Trump look good, I don’t believe that. Do you see the size of the target? At 130 meters it’s starting to look small.”confides the expert from the Paris region. An analysis supported by the words of another specialist, categorical: “He didn’t miss it on purpose.”

On X, an Internet user who presents himself as a physicist and pA university professor at the Free University of Brussels also suggests that the bullet did not actually hit Donald Trump’s ear. This is “the shock wave” of the ball which would have “ripped Mr. Trump’s skin off”he suggests. A hypothesis swept aside, even mocked by the experts interviewed.

The shock wave, “It’s more of an urban legend”judges the Girondin expert. To be injured, “There has to be an impact”he assures. Exactly the same story from the expert from the Paris region: “To be injured by a bullet, you have to be hit.”

As for this viral photo taken by an American photographer and published in the New York TimesThe three experts near the Court of Appeal call for the “mistrust”. “I have huge reservations. Generally, to be able to see a projectile, you need high-speed devices. I have very, very reservations about this white line. For me, it’s not the projectile, but that’s just my opinion.” Another abounds : “Maybe”, but “the line in the photo is not at ear height”.”Be careful”, concludes.