As it happens, the world is more complex than your pre-established prejudices you jump to. The police’s action was to find and arrest the actual shooter, which is, believe it or not, a good thing.
It’s literally in the subtitle: “Arthur Folasa Ah Loo, 39, was apparently shot by member of event’s peacekeeping team.” And then at the beginning of the story, it explains in detail the situation, which honestly wasn’t all that complex, a short direct event with 3 people involved in it. I and apparently all the downvoters managed to read it and make perfect sense of it.
You just couldn’t understand it because of your prejudices. You can only draw one type of conclusion in this type of situation, and this wasn’t it, so you couldn’t comprehend and reached a totally different conclusion and then broadcasted it to everyone who would listen. It had nothing to do with passive voice. And now, you’re doubling down on the same prejudices that led you to be unable to read the article and make sense of the clear explanation. That’s why I was kind of blunt with you: Because you’re going to keep failing to understand the world, sometimes in situations that are a lot less clear-cut and immediately obvious than this one, for as long as you cling to those prejudices (which are pretty popular prejudices to cling to in the modern left.)
Police shoot ‘No Kings’ demonstrator to death at Utah protest.Edit: Reading comprehension.
As it happens, the world is more complex than your pre-established prejudices you jump to. The police’s action was to find and arrest the actual shooter, which is, believe it or not, a good thing.
It was a genuinely rough read with all the passive voice.
But yeah, okay, I did totally believe a cop shot someone to death. I’ve been conditioned to expect it, because it happens so frequently.
You can dial it back now.
It’s literally in the subtitle: “Arthur Folasa Ah Loo, 39, was apparently shot by member of event’s peacekeeping team.” And then at the beginning of the story, it explains in detail the situation, which honestly wasn’t all that complex, a short direct event with 3 people involved in it. I and apparently all the downvoters managed to read it and make perfect sense of it.
You just couldn’t understand it because of your prejudices. You can only draw one type of conclusion in this type of situation, and this wasn’t it, so you couldn’t comprehend and reached a totally different conclusion and then broadcasted it to everyone who would listen. It had nothing to do with passive voice. And now, you’re doubling down on the same prejudices that led you to be unable to read the article and make sense of the clear explanation. That’s why I was kind of blunt with you: Because you’re going to keep failing to understand the world, sometimes in situations that are a lot less clear-cut and immediately obvious than this one, for as long as you cling to those prejudices (which are pretty popular prejudices to cling to in the modern left.)
Magat terrorist attack leads to innocent bystander being shot and killed.
Fixed it for you.
He wasn’t shot by the police. He was shot by a civilian.