Another Cinncinnati police shooting

Just read this on cnn.com

apparently there were reports of an armed man walking around, police responded, they exchange fire, bad guy is dead. But there’s something about the official statement that sets of BS alarm… here’s a snippet

“A man did fire. We have recovered spent shotgun shells along with [a] weapon. [The] weapon was also fully loaded.” Streicher said.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/27/cincinnati.shooting/index.html

granted, I don’t know the whole story, cnn is a little light on the details… but here’s what sets off my BS alarm. It claims he fired “A man did fire”, but “[The] weapon was also fully loaded.” I’m confused, if you fire a weapon, it can not be fully loaded… did the guy somehow posthumously reload?

thoughts?

How about double-checking the verb tense before reacting to the BS alarm? I clearly see the word “was.” Now, if the coppers said “the weapon is still {meaning right now, after the incident in question} fully-loaded,” then you’d have a case. Take the number of shells in the weapon and add the shells shot from it and you’ll likely get the “fully-loaded” count.

Since my initial reading the article has been updated. it is now no longer light in details. (The original said they did not know if the man had fired first or not, etc)

but thanks for the hostility… I like that

and with the new article, the discussion no longer matters. Feel free to nuke this thread.

Huh? Where in the world did you get that? Monty brought up several appropriate points that even the most thin-skinned would have to admit could barely be considered anything more than mildly instructive. With such a radical misinterpretation of a benign comment, I’d check that “alarm” of yours.

But I would agree that this thread is dead.

Sorry man,
hadn’t had my morning cafeine dosage. mis-interpretted the tone of your reply.

all apologies… but hey atleast I didn’t get all snippy about you not checking the time of my post vs the time stamp on the article you referenced, which showed that we read different articles… :wink: typically a good thing to do when questioning how carefully someone read an article…

No problem :slight_smile:

However, you do realize that I am different than the first person who responded (Monty), right? Are you sure that caffeine isn’t affecting your eyesight? :wink:

Something’s affecting something… I’m way off my game… musta been lurking for far too long… that or the fact that I only sorta half read posts while I’m at work.

also explains the lackluster postings I leave…

hey, look at me, I’m a friggin moron --Krusty the Klown

I’m gonna go crawl into a hole somewhere…

No sweat, bobo. I fondly remember the days of yore when I was hooked on caffeine. I gave that up (the caffeine, that is) a couple of years ago and, just to be sure, I also gave up meat eating a couple of months ago. Now, that would’ve been the time to catch me being hostile! :slight_smile: