Fragments from bullets remain embedded in his body.
Nearly two years after a gunman opened fire at a Pennsylvania campaign rally, two of the wounded survivors have carried their injuries into federal court — not merely to seek compensation, but to hold accountable the architecture of failure that made the shooting possible. James Copenhaver and David Dutch, both still bearing physical remnants of that July day, argue that the Secret Service's fragmented command structure and unsecured perimeter were not lapses of fate but of institutional negligence. Their lawsuits arrive as the first civil reckoning with what congressional investigators already confirmed: that the harm done was preventable, and that prevention was the agency's singular purpose.
- Two men still carry bullet fragments in their bodies nearly two years after a shooting the Secret Service's own internal reviews called an 'operational failure.'
- The lawsuits allege agents spotted the gunman acting suspiciously, saw him carrying a range finder, and even searched for him — yet left the rooftop he ultimately fired from completely unguarded.
- Rather than a unified command post, the Secret Service had set up fragmented trailers passing cellphones between them, a communication breakdown that congressional investigators say directly enabled the attack.
- The agency has already suspended agents, acknowledged 'human failure and technological breakdowns,' and conceded the day's events as a cautionary lesson — admissions the plaintiffs now argue prove legal liability.
- At $150,000 each in sought damages, the suits are less about the dollar figure than about forcing a court to formally assign responsibility for wounds that congressional findings say should never have been inflicted.
Two survivors of the July 2024 Butler, Pennsylvania rally shooting have filed federal lawsuits against the Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security, arguing that institutional negligence — not misfortune — made the attack inevitable. James Copenhaver and David Dutch, along with their wives, filed separate suits in western Pennsylvania this week. Dutch endured multiple surgeries after being shot in the abdomen; Copenhaver was struck twice and still carries embedded fragments. A third person, former volunteer fire chief Corey Comperatore, died that day shielding his family.
The gunman, Thomas Crooks, fired from the roof of the AGR Complex — a building the Secret Service had flagged as a potential vulnerability but never secured. In the hours before the shooting, agents observed Crooks behaving erratically, noted him carrying a range finder, and conducted a search for him. None of that intelligence reached the people positioned to act on it. The lawsuits attribute this not to isolated human error but to a structural flaw: instead of a unified command post, the agency had established fragmented trailers where agents passed cellphones between them rather than using centralized radio channels — a setup that, the suits allege, 'severely impeded' the flow of critical safety information.
The Secret Service has not disputed the underlying failures. Internal statements cited in the lawsuits acknowledge 'breakdowns in communication, technological issues, and human failure,' and officials described the day as an 'operational failure' and a reminder of the agency's zero-fail mission. Several agents were suspended, reassigned, or removed from operational roles — actions the plaintiffs argue constitute an implicit admission of material negligence.
Each plaintiff seeks $150,000 in damages plus fees, but the suits carry weight beyond their dollar amounts. They represent the first attempt to translate congressional findings and the agency's own concessions into a legal judgment against the government itself — and to answer, in a courtroom, whether the wounds these men still carry were the foreseeable cost of preventable failures.
Two men who took bullets at a Pennsylvania rally in July 2024 are now suing the federal government, arguing that the Secret Service's negligence made the shooting inevitable. James Copenhaver and David Dutch filed separate lawsuits this week in federal court in western Pennsylvania, naming the U.S. Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security as defendants. Their wives are also parties to the suits. The core allegation is straightforward: the agency responsible for protecting the former president failed at basic security work, and that failure allowed a gunman to fire from an unsecured rooftop.
The shooting happened on July 13, 2024, at the Butler Farm Show grounds during a Trump campaign rally. Thomas Crooks positioned himself on the roof of the AGR Complex—a building the Secret Service had identified as a potential vulnerability but never properly secured. He fired multiple rounds before a Secret Service sniper killed him seconds later. The bullet that grazed Trump's ear was the most visible wound that day, but Copenhaver and Dutch carry deeper ones. Dutch was shot in the abdomen and required multiple surgeries. Copenhaver was struck twice, once in the abdomen and once in the left arm, and fragments from the bullets remain embedded in his body. A third casualty that day was Corey Comperatore, a former volunteer fire chief who died shielding his family from the gunfire.
The lawsuits cite what congressional investigators called a "cascade of preventable failures." The Secret Service had warnings about the AGR Complex roof. Agents observed Crooks acting erratically in the hours before the shooting. He was seen with a range finder. A search was conducted for him. Yet the rooftop remained unguarded, and the information about these warning signs never reached the people who needed to know it. The lawsuits argue this was not accident but architecture—the Secret Service had set up fragmented command centers instead of a unified post, which meant critical intelligence got trapped in silos. Agents communicated via cellphones passed between trailers rather than using centralized radio channels, a system that "severely impeded" the flow of safety information.
The Secret Service has essentially conceded the point. In internal statements cited in the lawsuits, the agency acknowledged "breakdowns in communication, technological issues, and human failure." Officials called it "an operational failure" that would serve as a reminder of the importance of its "zero-fail mission." Several agents were suspended without pay, reassigned to restricted duty, or moved out of operational roles. The lawsuits argue that these admissions and disciplinary actions prove the failures were real and material—that they directly caused the shooting to occur.
Copenhaver and Dutch are each seeking $150,000 in damages, plus interest and attorney fees. The suits represent the first major civil reckoning with what happened that day, translating the congressional findings and the Secret Service's own acknowledgments into a legal claim against the government itself. The White House, Secret Service, and Department of Homeland Security have not yet responded to requests for comment. What happens next will likely turn on whether a court agrees that the government's negligence was gross enough to warrant compensation, and whether the specific failures alleged—the unsecured roof, the fragmented communications, the missed warnings—can be traced directly to the wounds these two men still carry.
Citações Notáveis
The assassination attempt on President Trump's life was entirely preventable and was caused, in whole or in part, by the failures of the Secret Service in the days leading up to the event as well as on the day of the assassination attempt.— From the lawsuits filed by Copenhaver and Dutch
The Secret Service acknowledged that its failures included 'breakdowns in communication, technological issues, and human failure' all of which contributed to the shooting, and that its conduct constituted 'an operational failure that the Secret Service will carry as a reminder of the critical importance of its zero-fail mission.'— Secret Service internal statement cited in the lawsuits
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does it matter that they're suing now, months after the shooting? Isn't the investigation already done?
The investigation found what happened. The lawsuit is asking whether the government should pay for it. There's a difference between a congressional report saying "you failed" and a court saying "you failed and owe damages."
But the Secret Service already admitted to the failures, right? They suspended people, moved them around.
They admitted to failures in general terms. The lawsuit is saying those failures were so gross, so reckless, that they crossed a legal line. It's asking a court to agree that this wasn't just a bad day—it was negligence so severe it warrants compensation.
What's the significance of the fragmented command centers and cellphone communication?
It's the difference between a mistake and a system that guarantees mistakes. If you design your security operation so information can't flow, you're not just failing to prevent something—you're actively preventing prevention.
Do you think $150,000 is a reasonable amount for what happened to these men?
That's not really for me to say. But consider: Copenhaver still has bullet fragments in his body. Dutch had multiple surgeries. The money isn't about making them whole—nothing does that. It's about the government acknowledging responsibility.
What happens if they win?
It sets a precedent that the government can be held liable for security failures at major events. It might also force real changes in how the Secret Service operates—unified command, better communication systems, protocols that actually work.