News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Did I miss the part of the article that described an active shooter?
All I read was there were shots, kids ran, and "threat was neutralized".
That chain of events could just as easily describe someone gunning down a random innocent person who actually posed no threat.
Maybe this happened as the headline would like us to believe, but that article isn't enough to prove it.
Police are intentionally vague immediately after anything like this. If police just shot someone for no reason, I doubt they would describe it in such a way. To me it seems pretty clear it was an active shooter that was eventually killed or injured to a point of incapacitation by police. I guess if you're still skeptical, you'll find out as more details become available.
The vagueness of a police statement makes it more credible? That sounds like a fairly dubious approach IMO.
That's not my approach. I just said its not abnormal. Police are always vague immediately after something like this. I don't think I drew any connection between vagueness and credibility, and if I did I didn't mean to.
You question where it mentions an active shooter, then repeat the part about it being an active shooter...? I'm confused.
I mean, there's no active shooter now, but when the shooter was active, there was an active shooter, and that's how it would have been called in.
They only mention one shooter, the person who merked the alleged threat. They say nothing to substantiate the claim that anyone else was shooting, or even aiming a gun.
Did you even read the article..?
I think the question comes from
Where else would the shots have come from if not a shooter? The threat was later neutralized (whatever that may mean) but yes, there was a shooter at some point if there were gunshots.
The article claims an active shooter was neutralized.
The article only discusses shooting in the context of someone being shot, the alleged active shooter.
That article, at the time that I read it, did nothing to describe anyone else firing a gun, except for the "hero" who allegedly neutralized that's supposed to threat.
Let me put it this way. Let's say I'm walking past a middle school with a gun, I see you, and promptly gun you down and claim that you we're an active shooter threat - even though you fired no shots.
The article, as it was written, could just of easily been written about that fictional scenario.
You understand my problem with it now?
Nobody said anything about a second shooter.
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".
It doesn't actually say the police fired any shots either. (Edit: actually it does, scratch that part.)
But if you read this quote:
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.
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.