Even if you filled in the blank, it’s still important to call out cop-excusing passive voice every single time just to highlight how pervasive a problem it is.
OK… It is in the very first sentence of the article.
The other part they didn’t include in the headline is that the fare evader pulled a knife when the police stopped him. This is also in the first sentence of the article.
OK… It is in the very first sentence of the article.
No it isn’t. The first sentence is “New York police have defended their actions after a bystander was shot in the head as two officers tackled a fare-evader armed with a knife in a busy subway station”. Nowhere there does it specify that the police were the ones that did the shooting.
The part they didn’t include in the headline is that the cops shot the bystander in the head.
I automatically filled in that blank. Because, of course the cops managed to fuck up a sitiation. Not surprised.
Even if you filled in the blank, it’s still important to call out cop-excusing passive voice every single time just to highlight how pervasive a problem it is.
OK… It is in the very first sentence of the article.
The other part they didn’t include in the headline is that the fare evader pulled a knife when the police stopped him. This is also in the first sentence of the article.
The “knife” they mysteriously haven’t been able to find?
No it isn’t. The first sentence is “New York police have defended their actions after a bystander was shot in the head as two officers tackled a fare-evader armed with a knife in a busy subway station”. Nowhere there does it specify that the police were the ones that did the shooting.
So, what’s your point?
Any of this change the innocence of the person they shot in the head??