General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPolice killed student outside Wisconsin school after reports of someone with a weapon, official says
MOUNT HOREB, Wis. (AP) Police shot and killed a student outside a Wisconsin middle school Wednesday after receiving a report of someone with a weapon, the states attorney general said in the first law enforcement briefing on gunshots that sent children fleeing and prompted an hourslong lockdown of local schools.
Authorities had previously said an active shooter who never got inside the building was neutralized outside Mount Horeb Middle School. State Attorney General Josh Kaul told reporters Wednesday evening no one else was harmed and that an investigation is ongoing.
This incident took place outdoors. The subject in this case never gained entry, he said.
Authorities described the student as a juvenile male but didnt provide an age or indicate which of the Mount Horeb districts schools he attended.
Kaul declined to answer several questions about what happened once police responded, including whether the student had fired a weapon, what type of weapon he had, and whether he tried to get inside the school. Authorities said multiple Mount Horeb officers, wearing body cameras, had fired weapons but they did not say how many.
https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-mount-horeb-active-shooter-school-8f1a4cb9b428eb4cb863469492625dfd
*******************************************************************************
I wonder how gun-humping parents will react to this story?
blogslug
(38,026 posts)I'm just so tired.
sarisataka
(18,950 posts)although I have to ask how a person can be considered an "active shooter" when it hasn't been confirmed if there fired or even had a weapon?
Sympthsical
(9,199 posts)Whose gunshots sent children fleeing, the juvenile or the police? If it's the juvenile, ok, the active shooter designation makes sense. If it's the police shooting that caused children to flee, then the active shooter designation makes less sense.
Whoever wrote this article is awarded no points for clarity.
I think it's supposed to read that the juvenile was shooting, children fled and lockdowns initiated, and the police killed the suspect.
I think. I'm a big fan of descriptive clauses in sentences, but Virginia Woolf couldn't pull that one apart.
That covers it. They responded to a report.
Could they show up to fire their guns to trigger the report that caused them to show up? No, it's not punctilious, but it's fairly clear. More than most in a good-will or even neutral conversation require. Only those that show ill-will in dialog require every instance to be covered need agree.
I doubt the reporter's in this particular camp.
Sympthsical
(9,199 posts)There are about eight different ways I can think of to write through the sequence of events in one sentence that make the order of those events much clearer to the reader.
I read the sentence multiple times, and I genuinely will not understand - with clarity - the events until someone else does a better job of writing it.
As for ill-will, there's no investment in either version of events. I would just like to know what they were with certainty.
getagrip_already
(15,014 posts)Or what parents involvement with gun was.
Irresponsible to toss around blame before facts are known.
Someone's child is dead. Luckily, more aren't, but one is still tragic.
Kaleva
(36,421 posts)He was reported as being an active shooter but
"Kaul was unable to confirm whether any shots were fired by the suspect, telling reporters he is limited in what details can be shared at this time due to the ongoing investigation."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wisconsin-mount-horeb-reported-active-shooter/story?id=109800261