It is good that he is making this statement. But, I sincerely hope that DemoRanch chooses to help everyone by providing a proof of purchase for that shirt worn by the assassin.
•Show the receipt that confirms Crooks actually purchased the shirt, when it was purchased, and where the product was delivered to. especially when!
•If the shooters name does not appear in sales records, then track down purchase into for matching shirts delivered near, and around the shooter's location.
It is in the public interest to know these kinds of purchase details.
I'm curious about why DemoRanch needs to go through these efforts? Why does the public need to know these details? What conclusion could be reached if these details aren't shared?
Because those details can help to reveal whether or not the shooters choice of attire was perhaps selected to help push a secondary agenda- the anti-gun agenda.
For example, what if the shirt was purchased by his dad (who also bought the gun) just a few weeks ago? What might that suggest?
Ah, that's reasonable. I thought maybe you were suggesting that DemoRanch needs prove that there is no connection between them and the shooter. Instead, you're suggesting that there could be more info revealed about the shooter or the circumstances around the event. Makes sense to me. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your reasoning. Thanks!
It is good that he is making this statement. But, I sincerely hope that DemoRanch chooses to help everyone by providing a proof of purchase for that shirt worn by the assassin.
•Show the receipt that confirms Crooks actually purchased the shirt, when it was purchased, and where the product was delivered to. especially when!
•If the shooters name does not appear in sales records, then track down purchase into for matching shirts delivered near, and around the shooter's location.
It is in the public interest to know these kinds of purchase details.
I'm curious about why DemoRanch needs to go through these efforts? Why does the public need to know these details? What conclusion could be reached if these details aren't shared?
Because those details can help to reveal whether or not the shooters choice of attire was perhaps selected to help push a secondary agenda- the anti-gun agenda.
For example, what if the shirt was purchased by his dad (who also bought the gun) just a few weeks ago? What might that suggest?
Ah, that's reasonable. I thought maybe you were suggesting that DemoRanch needs prove that there is no connection between them and the shooter. Instead, you're suggesting that there could be more info revealed about the shooter or the circumstances around the event. Makes sense to me. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your reasoning. Thanks!