The secret service was amazingly incompetent for letting JFK ride in an open limo driving between so many perfect places for a sniper to hide. They made is so easy for Oswald. Why didn't they have agents in the buildings along the route?

It was a different time. Security arrangements were just a lot more casual then.

And even today the Secret Service occasionally screws up. The recent assassination attempt against Donald Trump made that obvious but there are likely a lot of similar errors which never get exposed.

Security for a ex-president and presidential candidate is a LOT more lax than for the current President because the vast majority of resources is always going to be used to protect the current president. The situation where someone could get a sniper shot at the current President would never be allowed to happen.

>Why didn't they have agents in the buildings along the route?

Lol, I get it, but I'm pretty sure we've all settled on "just one shooter", or maybe "just one shooter, but secret service fumbled the AR getting into the car".

If you weren't making the reference I thought: some people believe that there were agents in the buildings around the route working together to shoot JFK - some with suppressed weapons and some without, so we wouldn't be able to easily localize where the shots came from by sound.

I think Oswald acted alone. I just don't understand why the SS made it so easy for him. JFK was served up to any sniper along the route on a silver platter.

Is this in the files they released now or prior, sauce please.

> would have held Oswald in custody for the day

Preemptive detainment? That doesn't sound very constitutional, to be honest. Is it actually a thing?

In USA you can be held 24 hours without being accused of a crime. People have absolutely been picked up by cops and released the next day without apology, most recently the George Floyd protests in Portland, unmarked cops in minivans picked up protestors without any intent to prosecute, just done to break up the protest

> In USA you can be held 24 hours without being accused of a crime

Doesn’t there need to be probable cause to trigger the arrest? Thar be sketchy isn’t probable cause.

Reasonable suspicion is indeed the standard, but it's quite easy to fabricate if you're literally just trying to detain someone and have no intent of seeking a warrant or pressing charges. I can't imagine they'd need to fabricate much for Oswald, whom they knew quite a bit about.

Certainly, the FBI to this day regularly engages in much legally sketchier behavior with much lower stakes.

Edit: cf their weird habit of actively encouraging children to become terrorists

https://theintercept.com/2024/01/10/fbi-sting-isis-autistic-...

https://theintercept.com/2023/06/15/fbi-undercover-isis-teen...

https://theintercept.com/2023/07/31/fbi-isis-sting-mentally-...

Even in legal theory, probable cause is not so well defined. In practice, a judge can be found that will agree with cops on whatever they say.

The legal system in the US rarely favors the little guy. Even if you have an ironclad case, the expense to sue isn't worth it.

Probable cause is a joke. It's incredibly easy to come up with a suspicion that someone is violating a law. That said, they don't need probable cause to arrest you, just to do so without potential liability. 99+% of people don't have the money, time, or connections to sue the police for probable cause violations, and even those that do likely won't win anything substantial unless there are several incidents.

Heard of "probable cause on four legs"? That's what sniffing dogs are meant for. They can use a dog to find a probable cause, and they don't need a warrant either. That's a carve out from the fourth amendment.