Because nothing says “accident” like leaving a prisoner in the middle of a railroad crossing!

    • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Dude. They have to maybe do community service. How can you say that!?

      Thoughts and prayers for the officers family…

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know, I agree with your point after reading it but sure don’t read statements about trains hitting things that way.

      A train is a huge and heavy thing that takes forever to slow down, so putting someone in front of a train or being hit by a train is read as the person who created the situation causing the harm, not the train. Almost like a force of nature, trains don’t hit things by choice so it is the fault of whoever put the thing in front of it that always take the blame.

      Obviously other people must read it the way you pointed out. Just noting that some people see it in a way that cannot possibly blame the train due to the properties of trains.

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Read the above comment again, towards the end of the first paragraph…

        “Yet somehow it’s the train’s fault?”

        I do believe that is implied sarcasm, they’re well aware it’s not the train’s fault.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “Flooding kill X people” is a regular headline though, as the default is to be based on the person/thing that is acting. So flooding kills people, but people who fall into the river while boating put themselves into the situation and therefore drowned.

          Things like trains that are controlled by people fall into the thing you are talking about, where there is a possibility that either person’s actions could have led to the outcome. In that case they tend to default the action based on avoiding blame in headlines. An “officer involved shooting” tries to avoid blaming either person, but as you note tends to be read as excusing the officer by default which is more of a blame the victim thing. It also avoids the possibility that the officer was present but never shot their weapon as a CYA default.

          For trains though, it is treated like someone who stepped in front if a car in a way that couldn’t be avoided. They were struck by the car even though the impact was not caused by the car or the driver. That is because the car is the larger object that impacted a smaller object.

          So I am agreeing with you that the language can imply something, but explaining that it is not always malicious intent that results in the wording we see every day. In fact, I would prefer if shootings involving police were worded as “police shot X” instead of officer involved shooting, and that vehicles/people were described as not getting out of the way of trains. But that just isn’t how attempts at neutral language work.

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          An officer-adjacent multisystem traffic event and subsequent cessation of suspect vitality.

          Soft, passive language where the events are technically communicated but the impact of them is lessened to the point of outright denial and absolutely no one is in any way responsible for their actions.

    • dan1101@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I see your point. It’s the same sort of thing for various violence around the world. Headlines like “3 die in West Bank Violence” should actually be “Israeli Soldiers Kill 3 Palestinians.”

    • JoJoGAH@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      This misuse of language has irritated me for years in both media and personal life. “It” didn’t do a damn thing!

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think this also speaks to an issue around suicide. I used to work in behavioral healthcare and “suicide” is a similar issue. There’s a lot of debate around “commit suicide,” since it sort of blames the person and not the illness.

      It’s hard to frame these conversations around cause of death in certain situations.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      hit by train

      hit by car

      hit by a pitch

      hit by stray bullet

      struck by new knowledge

      This is just the way our natural grammatical structure works.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We’re not having a discussion about grammar, we’re having a discussion about how phrases can be misleading even if technically correct, and how those phrases can end up serving inhuman agendas.

          We’re having a discussion about the way a person wrote a headline, and I explained that, rather than believe an elaborate conspiracy theory, you could acknowledge that this is just the way English grammatical structures work.

          The alternative to “hit by a train” is going to be multiple sentences long to convey the same information. Your conspiracy theory about it being a deflection falls apart because the entire article is about how the officer is legally and ethically at fault, accepts that, and that the family understands that.

          “Trapped prisoner in path of train” oddly enough, is slanted language with misleading nuances.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean, the correct phrase here is “murdered by a cop” but you can see where the people that pay cops to murder us might object to that phrasing. They like soft language where of course everyone wishes that things had gone differently but it’s also no one’s fault and nothing is going to change.

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Looks like you just dropped this vial of cocaine while asking this question. Do you want to step into this little room while we ask you more questions over and over again?

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The suspect was resisting arrest. Several officers who arrived on the scene after the shooting testified that they saw the suspect reach for the officer’s service weapon. Bodycam footage will be accidentally deleted shortly. Anyone who knows of security cameras in the area is encouraged to bring that footage and all backups to the local police department to aid in the investigation. Bring your dog, too. This is gonna be fun.

  • blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    A light punishment would be termination and revoking their drivers license for not being able to see train tracks, or a train. Or able to hear.

  • Ejh3k@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    So she out the suspect in the back of a different cop’s car and then a train came? Did I read that correctly?

    1. Why was a cop so far away from the car that no one was able to move it?

    2. Who fucking parks on top of railroad tracks ever? I have a local spur that serves a lumber yard. I’ve literally never seen a railcar on the tracks and I would never think about parking anywhere near this tracks even though they cross the road into the yard where there is primarily street parking.

    • Mirshe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      She claimed that she couldn’t see the tracks and didn’t know that they were there, despite walking across the rails something like 7-8 times in the dash video.

    • Raiderkev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      https://youtu.be/t6HRRSismpo?si=MLR2kQWyuCjMRn5p

      Give it a look for yourself. I watch this channel a lot, and watched this one not knowing what would happen, but the whole time I was like screaming THE CAR IS ON THE TRACKS WTF. MOVE YOUR CAR!

      The part where the train actually hits the car is not shown in this vid FYI, but it was extreme negligence on behalf of the officers on scene.