376
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
376 points (97.2% liked)
News
36735 readers
380 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"Memphis Police Chief Cerelyn “CJ” Davis said, “I am proud of the vigilant and quick response of MPD officers who mitigated a potential mass shooting situation today.”"
I feel like the cops are giving themselves too much credit here. Mitigating the potential mass shooting event to me means preventing the shooter from shooting at the school... I mean good on them for catching him quickly though, that is good work and I try to give credit where it's due despite generally not appreciating cops, but mitigating the attack is not what they did there...
At least by my layman definitions. Does mitigate mean something else in cop talk?
I guess they could be saying there was potential of him going somewhere else and doing a mass shooting there, so maybe that's what they mean?
Mitigating doesn't mean you prevented it from happening. I would say mitigate is a reasonable word for exactly what they did.
That's fair, but then in this context, how does mitigating apply?
Is it because they made it less severe somehow? Or this is just from a pure risk assessment standpoint? As in, they mitigated a potential threat to the public?
Ok, yeah I think that last one makes sense if that's what you're meaning. (I think my issue may be pedantic af but this is what it looks like when I'm intentionally trying to not be a definition stickler lol)
Based on what I read, they mitigated the situation by shooting the guy outside which resulted in zero injuries inside the school, rather than doing an Uvalde where the shooter was given free reign to continue shooting.
They shot the guy far away from the school, after they identified the car... They did nothing to mitigate the school situation, that was 100% the school worker who did the mitigating by somehow not letting this person in. The mitigation happening in this story does happen, but the cops aren't the ones doing it, and then taking credit for it is weird, is what I'm trying to get at.
Though let me go read it again, it sounds like you and I almost read different articles...
Yeah, no, the cops weren't at the school until well after shots were fired.
It's no Uvalde for sure but this is... Just weird behavior on the cop's part, I don't understand it tbh. It's splitting hairs but I still don't like them patting themselves on the back using those words because that's not what happened...
But like my opinion on how mitigation the word should be used, ultimately, this doesn't matter. Good job to the cops, thank goodness the kids are safe, and hopefully one day I'll figure out how to be more chill about shit that doesn't really matter lol