460
What a confusing headline. The cop did not, in fact, shoot a dead man. He shot a live man, killing him.
Same headline with fixed grammar:
London Cop Who Shot Unarmed Black Man Dead Charged With Murder
The headline is grammatically correct and only confusing if you're not super familiar with the phrase "shot dead".
It would be clearer just by saying "shot and killed".
He shot them dead. It’s a figure of speech, meaning the shot was fatal. So the headline is fine. He shot dead a cat. He shot dead an old lady. He shot dead a black kid.
The headline is technically grammatically correct but ambiguous. "...shot and killed unarmed black man" would have been better. If you absolutely need to stick to word/character count, "shot unarmed black man dead" would be less ambiguous and more in keeping with how people actually use "shot dead". I've watched a lot of westerns and I can think of quite a few where someone says "I shot him dead" but not one where someone says "I shot dead him".
The US and the UK have different figures of speech and idioms. People in the UK don't usually sound like cowboys.
I'd love to see an example of "I shot dead him". I'm not trying to be defensive, I'd really enjoy seeing it. Dialects fascinate me.
Well, it's an expression that only comes up in the third person, not the first person. You'd see "Tim shot dead Eric". I think if they'd say anything like that in the UK, it would just be "I shot him".
I still only have ever heard "Tim shot Eric dead." I've never seen it any other way except in this headlines.
Yeah it's the wrong way round but I think most people can also infer some context from the part where it mentions the murder charge.
Or just leave out “dead” entirely—it’s already implied by the murder charge.
Yes and no, technically without "dead" and leaving the rest of the sentence unchanged, it could imply the cop has a separate murder charge. A better headline is "London Cop Charged With Murder After Shooting And Killing Unarmed Black Man."
That doesn’t rule out the logical possibility of the murder charge being for a different incident. But you could eliminate it with “London Cop Charged With Murder For Shooting Unarmed Black Man”.
Where were you when the editor didn't do their job?
For a secon thrre I thigh he shot a walking dead man and was wondering why he was going to jail
This whole article has a few confusing points, and the article never clarifies them. So the vehicle is confirmed to be involved with a shooting the day before. The vehicle does not belong to the rapper, but was driving it. How did the rapper acquire the vehicle? Was he actually involved in the shooting the day before or not? Did someone he knows give it to him? Lots of questions, bad article.
No, it would need a comma to convey that meaning:
"London Cop Who Shot Dead, Unarmed Black Man Charged With Murder"
"Shot dead" is a common phrase in original English.
Imagine consequences for public servants
Good. It is what he deserves.
Technically, it's part of figuring out what he deserves
Okay, I'm really confused by this. He did not own the vehicle, but this was a vehicle used in a crime the day before. How did the rapper end up driving the suspected car???
Why does it matter relative to the cop murdering this man?
The headline is confusing because it had to stretch really far to not say that the cop murdered the guy.
It literally states that the cop shot the guy dead, I don't really see any stretches
That it was murder is not yet proved.
the headline is absolutely correct. He has killed a black Man and is charged with murder. He is however not yet convicted of murdering the other guy.
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
460 points (97.9% liked)
News
23293 readers
5038 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS