A Wisconsin school district says an active shooter has been “neutralized” outside a middle school in Mount Horeb and that no one in the building was hurt.
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.
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.
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 I miss the part of the article that described an active shooter?
All I read was there were shots[…]
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.
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.
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.
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.