Editor Fail

A press service produces this text, "The mayor of Lancaster, Pennsylvania on Monday called for an overhaul of how the city responds to mental health situations after a police officer shot and killed a 27-year-old man who ran at him, allegedly threatening him with a knife."

Then they post this photo.

Trying to figure out that there "allegedly" part.

Innocent until proven guilty, we still do that, right?

I think the video and the officer pronounced him guilty....

Justified self defense shoot by the police officer
Guilty on the nut charging the Police Officer with a large knife trying to kill the officer! Pictures do not lie.

What we have here....is a failure to communicate....

You are a great example of the problems in this country.......I guess if it were you in the role of that police officer you would of let him stab you first just to make sure he is guilty of attempting to murder...... do you think or contemplate before you post? IMO the answer is no.......you are indoctrinated and live your life letting your emotions lead the way.....

This one has excellent potential!!!!!

They should have sent some social workers. yeah, that would fix it.

Its hard to prove them guilty when your dead. Or i guess we should just sacrifice a good cop and contributing member of society to every looney person with a weapon till they can be placed in a rehab facility for a few months and start back at square one.

Nope ask the rioters. They found LEO immediately guilty and didn’t wait for the body cam footage or trial

Releasing the video is pretty decisive of self defense on officers part, and if a new article uses the video images it pretty telling of understanding of events.

But please tell us where chasing someone with a knife is an act of self defense

I'm sorry, I thought you had a basic understanding of how journalism works. For centuries in this country, news outlets have used the word "allegedly" to describe acts that did not result in a criminal conviction. In an effort to avoid libel suits, it is the standard across the country. This guy was never tried for his crimes, so the news source used the word, "allegedly".

Get down off your high your high horse. Not every statement you don't understand is an attempted commie attack on your way of life.

100% Pretty good shooting too considering he was retreating AND a lunatic was charging at him with a knife.

Bullchit. They do this all the time now to downplay the criminal. There is a difference between 'allegedly embezzled $1,000,000' and a video showing a man running at you with a knife. He is not being charged with a crime, there is no need for 'allegedly'. You are allowed to give statements of fact in the press without fear of libel.

Nice try Phil.... at least own the fact that your reply had nothing to do with law speak.....you were inferring that our eyes might be lying to us and if we knew the full story that we will never know he could be innocent.....own it Phill

No, I was implying that the journalist didn't want to get sued. You inferred some backhanded attack by a shadow enemy out to destroy america.

The guy obviously charged the cop with a knife and it was clearly a justified shooting. No doubt about it. I agree with you. Are you just so desperate for a fight that you really want to argue journalism linguistics?

I'm certain, you apply this same standard, to the police...………
go away troll...…………………..

This is an example of you running on emotions.....go back and read again.....you are confusing me with a different members post that you made this comment to in the reply you are referring to.....

That's clearly a "mostly dull knife"

Well then I think the idiot was only "allegedly" shot.

It’s not an editing fail, it’s standard journalistic practice and absolves anyone, but especially media outlets, of civil liability. Yes, sometimes it’s ridiculous (like in this instance) but it shows objectivity and prevents being sued by the person arrested or accused of something.

If he had stabbed the officer, they still would’ve used allegedly. Or “accused of...” or something similar. It doesn’t mean the paper is giving an out to the guy with the knife.

My goodness. Some of y’all need to take a deep breath.

Man chases LEO with Knife and LEO shots him in alleged self defense, doesn’t seem more fitting?


let’s be honest it’s click bait anyway, no real reporting anymore

No offense but I don’t need you to spell it out for me.......the deep breath suggestion is a good one though.....

Never in my wildest dreams did I believe posting this would fall into a "discussion" were normally reasonable people utilize an illogical argument to further bolster a completely ridiculous opinion. Earth to Phil, there was nothing alleged about the chasing with the knife. Even a child can see with his own eyes.

He wasn’t chasing, he was going on a leisurely exercise run, and found a knife and he was simply removing it from the reach of childern......

Oh thats fake news and you know it BOBO. He is a hero who took the knife away from a Gang Banger Criminal robbing a little old lady and was trying to gently hand it over to the Officer so it would never possibly be used to harm an innocent citizen

It turned out the way it should have.
He won't chase anybody else.

Yeppers. Brought a knife to a gun fight and found out why that's never a good idea. Regardless of what he learned in Petiki YouTube videos.

Pitchfork, so are you. You are just indoctrinated into a different system and have different emotions. We all are to a considerable degree, whether we like it or not.

And it looks like it was a justified shoot. my 2 cents

Lawsuits can be expensive.

Sad.

Whats the solution, a tranquilizer gun? Some type of net-like air launched restraint fired from an M203?

I agree with your point.......perhaps I should of been more clear......indoctrinated into a system that's emotion driven.....and I was indoctrinated into a system that's logic driven.......thank God for when I was born.....

No offense, but you’ve been the most emotional person on this forum the last two days I’ve ever seen.

But, no offense

tit for tat - got it

Allegedly is a term that has been used in court for many years. The media started using it more and more over the last 10-15 years. Used fairly and accurately, the statement should have been that the suspect allegedly attacked the officer with a knife and the officer allegedly shot him and killed him. That is not what was written though, it was written that the officer shooting him was a fact and that allegedly the suspect attacked the officer with a knife. That is a biased statement, there's no way to know if it's implicitly biased, but biased nonetheless.

I love all you guys and love this forum. Where else can a guy go to waste his day trying to convince others to think like him, or you don’t have to if you don’t want to. No sarcasm, plenty of opportunities on here and they can be taken or left alone. All is good, so carry on....

Wrong. The police chief acknowledged that one of his officers shot the guy. A government official saying another government employee did something negates the need for using “alleged.” The government accusing a citizen of something requires the use of alleged. As explained in this thread, media outlets use ‘allegedly’ because it absolves them of civil liabilities.

https://www.wgal.com/article/lancas...y-force-against-man-with-knife/34032852#

Here is what my AP Stylebook says about the use of ‘alleged.’






The last picture is to show when my copy was printed, which was 2002 (more than 15 years ago, by the way), but the guidelines for ‘alleged’ have been the same for decades. This is my second copy, after I foolishly traded my first copy in after my freshman year of college. There is not a conspiracy around the use of the word in news stories. The AP Stylebook is used by 99% of newspapers and is basically the Bible of news writing and standardizes news reports.

This is not some lame stream media conspiracy. It’s quite simple and easily explainable. Sometimes, it’s silly to use the word alleged, especially when it’s extremely clear from the video, but it’s standard practice and not saying the guy didn’t attack an officer with a knife.

I am no longer in the profession (been out for 13 years but still keep up with current events and how the media covers things, more importantly). I loath what it’s become and Trump’s lasting legacy, no matter what happens, will be that he exposed the media for how biased and truly awful it’s become. He’s done a lot of good, but the best thing is exposing the media.

I’m a Trump voter and conservative, but this is not a conspiracy. It’s stupid and not worth anyone’s time because it’s easily explainable.

OK you bunch of screwballs get back on the Thorazine

I’ve searched and read various news reports on the incident. Nowhere have I found the use of allegedly.

I'm allegedly offended that we are arguing or opinionating on 'allegedly'

"This is not some lame stream media conspiracy. It’s quite simple and easily explainable. Sometimes, it’s silly to use the word alleged, especially when it’s extremely clear from the video, but it’s standard practice and not saying the guy didn’t attack an officer with a knife."

Read this and think about it. It's the media's "duty" to report the news not as it is? The square heads around here have a phrase for that - bull schizza.

“Read this and think about it.”

I wrote it, so obviously I have. I took many, many journalism courses in college. I wrote for a newspaper for three years. I still follow the media from the perspective of where their bias lies, whether they follow standard practices, whether they mislead the public, etc. That interests me more than most of the actual news, honestly, and it’s the best thing Trump has done - exposing the media for being frauds.

You can continue to be pissed about something that’s been explained multiple times and is standard practice going back decades. I don’t care. The word “alleged” literally changes nothing. The guy clearly leapt at the officer with a knife. The use of the word alleged is to avoid civil suits, it’s standard practice. It isn’t biased and doesn’t change anything. There are real issues with the news media in this country (and they’re getting worse, not better) but this is nit picky and getting worked up for a silly reason.

Not pissed about anything, just so glad I live my life where people expect the truth and hear it from me without being bridled by some "standard practice" which prevents me from telling it like it. After all, the truth is always what it is. I am guessing the riots and civil destruction are also just alleged. Great way to have to live one's life. Once again, so glad it is not me.

Where did the OP find this article or quote?

None of the news reports I’ve found use allegedly.

But I understand the use in journalism.

This could be one of those snippets that gets circulated around the internet but is actually false. Then people fall for it.

Allegedly, it's right here.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...estigation-in-pennsylvania-idUSKBN26527B

Thanks I was looking in the body of the news reports.

A lot of the ones I read didn’t have it.

Practices which prohibit you from telling the whole truth are a slippery path to plain ol' out & out lies. I am starting to get it.

“Expect the truth...”

Where did they lie? This is one of the craziest dog-with-a-bone stances I’ve ever seen. Seriously, the most absurd thing to get worked up over, the parsing of words, semantics, and just not accepting that it just flat out doesn’t matter while ignoring the reasoning behind it and the fact it’s been journalistic practice forever.

I’ve never said the guy didn’t have a knife or didn’t deserve to be shot. In fact, he did have a knife and should’ve been shot. Going further, he should’ve never been on the streets, given his mental state and past stabbings.

I’m so sorry this is happening to you.

"..... after a police officer shot and killed a 27-year-old man who ran at him, allegedly threatening him with a knife."

.... after a police officer shot and killed a 27-year-old man who ran at him while threatening him with a knife."

Watch the video, look at the photo and tell me which one of the above sentences carries more truth. It's either the whole truth or not the whole truth. Reading the print without attention to the other available media would cause doubt in the mind when no doubt is needed.

1) I’ve watched the video
2) we agree on what occurs in the video
3) I’ve explained why the media uses the word allegedly, even digging up my copy of the AP Stylebook and posting pictures of it
4) I’ve explained why they don’t use ‘allegedly’ when the police department releases a statement confirming that an officer shot the guy and why the media uses ‘alleged’ when describing what was in his hand when he as shot

It’s just not this hard. You’re arguing semantics and things that just don’t matter. Everyone looking at the picture or watching the video knows the guy has a knife. You’re still [censored] your pants over semantics.

The use of the word ‘allegedly’ DOES NOT DISTORT THE TRUTH. Unless you’re the type of person who is too dense to realize the facts after watching the video or seeing the picture, or to make a valid critique of the media, which the media makes it very easy to do.

There are 100 examples every single day of the media distorting the truth in this country alone. You chose the most boilerplate, common, standard use of a word that is only used so they don’t get sued civilly to lose your [censored] over. Then, after it was explained 19 times, you start calling it a lie. It literally has no bearing on what happened, or what the truth is.

Why not call out something that the media actually lies about, instead of something they’re literally not lying about, because they posted the image of the guy with a knife from the freaking body cam footage? If the article you didn’t link to, but screen-shotted, had not included the picture or video, there might be an issue here. But they posted the screen shot. Allegedly is used to cover their [censored]. It’s not a conspiracy. Pick something else that actually is a coverup.

Bottom line, to quote Bill Shakespeare, “good riddance”.

I start a thread and then you argue with my message, but yet I am the one being accused of using semantics. Okay, I am officially dense here. Everyone in these parts knows that.

"The use of the word ‘allegedly’ DOES NOT DISTORT THE TRUTH." How can you say this? Why use the word if it has no affect? Frankly, use of the word allegedly is a wrongful allegation in and of itself.

I go in and say, "Watch the video, look at the photo and tell me which one of the above sentences carries more truth. It's either the whole truth or not the whole truth. Reading the print without attention to the other available media would cause doubt in the mind when no doubt is needed." You come back without directly answering the question. You response is nothing, but an obfuscation, "Unless you’re the type of person who is too dense to realize the facts AFTER WATCHING" (caps mine) "the video or seeing the picture, . . . .". Why can't you stay on point? Think about being more direct and your message(s) will be clearer.

And yes, the use of the word allegedly is a lie and that is plain & simple. I could care less about long standing practices which make liars out of people or worse yet, cover up known lies with some sort of "cloak. May not be there where you are, but it is definitely BS here.

So now, a different news source has reported, "911 Call From Intoxicated Jerry Falwell Jr.’s House Last Month Describes ‘A Lot Of Blood’". I am not a follower of this man, but doesn't he deserve the same care that the alleged knife toting, chasing the police officer, gun shot "victim" deserved? I mean and after all, "The use of the word ‘allegedly’ DOES NOT DISTORT THE TRUTH." What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Somes here would rather allow the usage of words to create a narrative rather than clarity to provide the news.

Here’s a tip: provide the source when you bring this [censored] up. I have no idea what you’re talking about because I can’t read it for my self. Also, it’s not rocket science: the media in this country sucks in general. Some are even worse than others. It’s very possible the Falwell story is reported unfairly (although just the sentence you posted sounds very tabloid-y.

The Falwell story is totally independent from the story in the OP, even if it came from the same source, but especially if it came from a different source.