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.
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?