Log In | Register
21 Comments
Printadvertisement
This article is over 14 days old and has been removed by requirement of the Associated Press.
9 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Associated Press's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: United States , Las Vegas
- Public Discussion (21)
- Public Discussion (0)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
6.3
4.8
1.2
{"commentId":182083,"authorDomain":"jnearen"}
What's shot by the police in Las Vegas, stays in Las Vegas!
{"commentId":182083,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"jnearen"}
- 1 vote
#1 - Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:34 PM EDT{"commentId":182175,"authorDomain":"lll"}
Oh, he will likely stay there for quite a while!
{"commentId":182175,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"lll"}
{"commentId":182126,"authorDomain":"D3VUS"}
I know those cops were excited!
{"commentId":182126,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"D3VUS"}
#2 - Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:09 PM EDT{"commentId":182172,"authorDomain":"lll"}
AP didn't catch the title?
Should be "Police shot man at Vegas airport". I hope they are not still shooting now!
{"commentId":182172,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"lll"}
#3 - Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:50 PM EDT{"commentId":182178,"authorDomain":"seize"}
AP should never run unedited, and this is the tamest of reasons why. Testy Copy Editors is a bulletin board to see the worst examples.
{"commentId":182178,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"seize"}
{"commentId":182292,"authorDomain":"rjhunter"}
Headlines are supposed to be in present tense.
{"commentId":182292,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"rjhunter"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":182341,"authorDomain":"seize"}
Not at every paper. For AP, yes.
{"commentId":182341,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"seize"}
{"commentId":182349,"authorDomain":"seize"}
Actually, Robert is completely right. I was looking at other headlines for a style-example and forgot to check if they were user-submitted heads vs. AP. (My bad.) Good headlines should be in present for immediate past events, past for past perfect and future for future. And here at Newsvine, upstyle.
That being said, AP still should never run unedited.
{"commentId":182349,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"seize"}
{"commentId":182360,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
Rob's right. This headline is correct.
Example: "Hurricanes win Stanley Cup" vs. "Hurricanes won Stanley Cup". The first is correct.
{"commentId":182360,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
{"commentId":182237,"authorDomain":"webquacks"}
{"commentId":182361,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
What I want to know is what Bill Gates has to do with this (see top-left of picture). :)
{"commentId":182361,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
- 2 votes
#5 - Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:13 AM EDT{"commentId":182607,"authorDomain":"pody"}
{"commentId":183507,"authorDomain":"Ortuid"}
"As soon as the breach occurred, the police were in place, and the system worked."
We wouldn't view it like this in the UK. Having to fire 2 live rounds into a suspect at close range with no implication that he had a firearm or was about to use lethal force would be seen as failure. You are so used to violence you've become immune to its use.
{"commentId":183507,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"Ortuid"}
- 2 votes
#6 - Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:52 PM EDT{"commentId":183739,"authorDomain":"pody"}
He ran through a security checkpoint. After 9/11, that's a big @!$%#ing deal.
{"commentId":183739,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"pody"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":184126,"authorDomain":"Ortuid"}
Dom Pody
He ran through a security checkpoint. After 9/11, that's a big @!$%#ing deal
I understand why you say that but I don't agree.
How many suicide bombers with explosives strapped to their chest (as opposed to flying overhead) have you had in the US? Nil. There was no reasonable overwhelming risk to life and limb - either for the officers or for travellers.
There is no justifiable reason to fire multiple times on a lightly armed subject. That you do so, and people accept it, is simply because you have become dehumanised by violence and you place so little value on human life (in this case his).
{"commentId":184126,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"Ortuid"}
- 2 votes
#7 - Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:02 AM EDT{"commentId":184367,"authorDomain":"pody"}
Think about this: you are an armed officer whose job it is to protect people from terrorists. Anyone who is currently a TSA officer is going to be far more security-minded because of 9/11 than they were before. Now, in order to get the knives and weapons onto the planes during 9/11, they had to sneak them through security checkpoints.
Now, a man runs through a security checkpoint and the alarms go off. The guards immediately think that he is a terrorist- wouldn't you?- and shoot him down to protect human lives. They don't know he's not a suicide bomber, all they know is that someone setting off a security checkpoint and running away is doing something highly illegal, and is probably trying to kill dozens on American lives. I'd shoot him too, and I think most people on Newsvine would as well.
{"commentId":184367,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"pody"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":184530,"authorDomain":"Ortuid"}
Dom Pody
Now, a man runs through a security checkpoint and the alarms go off. The guards immediately think that he is a terrorist- wouldn't you?- and shoot him down to protect human lives. They don't know he's not a suicide bomber, all they know is that someone setting off a security checkpoint and running away is doing something highly illegal, and is probably trying to kill dozens on American lives.
This is a sad indictment of what you have become. Someone runs through security - to do something "highly illegal" or whatever - and your view is you should shoot him multiple times. Not apprehend him. Shoot him. The burden of proof is on the guy getting shot - prove yourself NOT to be a suicide bomber and we won't kill you (as long as you're quick).
And this is justified? A sad and sick society which has grown used to violence and become dehumanised as a consequence.
In the UK we have stringent rules about the use of firearms and shoot to kill needs to be authorised in advance and from the UK top police officer. Our system isn't perfect as we've seen from recent events, but my goodness, we haven't abandoned ourselves to barbarity.
{"commentId":184530,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"Ortuid"}
- 3 votes
#8 - Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:56 AM EDT{"commentId":184583,"authorDomain":"pody"}
If the man was about to set off a bomb- as any reasonable guard would think- attempting to apprehend him would have done nothing to rectify the problem.
Should they have arrested him? Of course. But their intent was to protect dozens of lives, and therefore their actions are justified.
{"commentId":184583,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"pody"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":184773,"authorDomain":"kdave"}
They didn't suspect he was carrying a bomb. They just saw a guy running through a checkpoint and went for the de facto response - shoot him, and if it doesn't kill him it's a bonus.
{"commentId":184773,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"kdave"}
{"commentId":184807,"authorDomain":"pody"}
Of course they did- a man ran through a checkpoint in an airport. They had no indication that he was not simply using the kidnapping of the boy to distract them from the fact that he might have been planning to detonate a bomb. Let me reiterate: if you work as airport security, and alarms go off at a security checkpoint, you are thinking "@!$%#, another 9/11." That in itself is reasoning to shoot a man.
{"commentId":184807,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"pody"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":184890,"authorDomain":"kdave"}
They had no indication that he was not simply using the kidnapping of the boy to distract them from the fact that he might have been planning to detonate a bomb.
In the same way that they could think "That guy's buying coffee to distract from the fact he's carrying a bomb!" or "That guy's getting something from his bag! Bomb!".
Although I don't deny that in the heat of the moment I'd probably shoot the guy as well. If someone runs at you with a knife, you don't mess around.
{"commentId":184890,"threadId":"15364","contentId":"270705","authorDomain":"kdave"}
- 2 votes
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"15364","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
