• catloaf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Nobody said anything about a second shooter.

    • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Great, so then we agree. The article only describes someone being killed, and all it does to justify that killing is to label them an active shooter.

      But the only person the article describes as firing any shots, is the one who killed the supposed threat.

      Maybe that person was a threat, I don’t know. I just know the article was so poorly written and sourced, that it shouldn’t have been published.

      “Man kills another man, but pinky promises that guy was about to kill a bunch of kids. No further information necessary, obviously checks out”.

      • catloaf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It doesn’t actually say the police fired any shots either. (Edit: actually it does, scratch that part.)

        But if you read this quote:

        “It was maybe like pow-pow-pow-pow,” Keller told The Associated Press by phone. “I thought it was fireworks. I went outside and saw all the children running … I probably saw 200 children.”

        She heard gunshots, then there were kids running. That sounds like the start of the event, not the resolution.

        Ultimately we don’t have enough detail to say for sure, but given it was reported as an active shooter, that’s enough to justify the headline.

        • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Right, and that scenario along with the quote could just as easily been applied to the hypothetical alternative scenario I laid out on my last comment.

          This is just a terribly written and poorly sourced article that no editor should have allowed to be published.