A woman is dead following a “tragic chain of events” that began with a bomb threat against Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene at her Rome home, police said.
A woman is dead following a “tragic chain of events” that began with a bomb threat against Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene at her Rome home, police said.
I’d argue it isnt clickbait and is a fairly accurate title. Motorist killed as police respond. The motorist was hit while the police were responding. The title never claimed the motorist had anything to do with the bomb threat, that was the context for the police response. Typically when the headline is refering to someone involved with the crime, they use the term suspect. The fact they used motorist actually gave me a hint it was an unassociated party that was hit.
The only way it’s misleading is in the usual refusal to acknowledge that the police killed this innocent person. It’s always the same passive voice, as if people keep magically dropping dead when the police happen to be around.
It including that it was to a bomb threat towards green implies an untrue association.
Was the title technically accurate? Yes. Is it still click bait? I’d say yes. Cops kill people responding to (and no where near,) calls with a startling regularity.
Some cop got up and yehawwed through traffic without the usual aids to make it safe. It happens. It’s almost never reported.
A headline trying to get you to read an article!? The scandal of the century.
It doesn’t imply that the motorist had any association with the crime. It barely implies that the two events are related and doesn’t even suggest that the police were involved in the killing.
I wouldn’t concede the technically accurate part myself. That second paragraph really throws that into doubt.
Where do you get they were responding? This says they were heading to headquarters in a personal vehicle. They’re not rushing to the scene of anything here.
They were called in for a bomb threat (as bombsquads usually are,) but had to report to the station first.
so they were “responding” to the bomb threat, but had to go gear up before actually heading out. So it’s fair to say they were “responding”, particularly since highly specialized cops like bomb techs only catch certain kinds of calls, and other cops stay the hell away from them.
Exactly, so not rushing to the scene of the crime , but going to change clothes. If their expertise was needed immediately they would have headed right to the scene, and if equipment was needed it would have met them there. Of course it’s all moot because if you actually read the article, you’d see that the bomb threat was made on Friday, and this happened on the following Monday. So tell me again what they’re responding to? Tell me again why he had to kill this woman? Did this even have anything to do with the bomb threat or are they just using it as an excuse when they really just killed a woman?
Ahhh… Okay. But wait, the equipment can’t teleport or drive itself there, right? So maybe this person was doing that, getting the equipment there, so other people could drive straight there?
They never said that, lol
What do you mean maybe this person was doing that? Where are on Earth you getting that from? They’re absolutely implying the death of this woman was justifiable due to an emergency. An emergency that didn’t exist. Which I note that you didn’t address at all.
Where? They only said it wasn’t click bait and that the accident happened while the officer was responding. “They’re absolutely implying the death of this woman was justifiable due to an emergency.” They never ever say it was justifiable. Show me where.
I said implying genius you just quoted me saying that. By saying that the motors was hit while the police were responding. That part. That’s called justification.
I noticed yet again you ignored the pertinent part of my comment though. Almost like you don’t want to bring it up.
I didn’t answer that part because it was irrelevant to anything I was saying. And no, I don’t agree that saying an officer responding to something getting into an accident “implies” it is justified. Much less do I agree that someone stating that fact means they’re implying they personally thought it was justified.