OK… It is in the very first sentence of the article.
The other part they didn’t include in the headline is that the fare evader pulled a knife when the police stopped him. This is also in the first sentence of the article.
OK… It is in the very first sentence of the article.
No it isn’t. The first sentence is “New York police have defended their actions after a bystander was shot in the head as two officers tackled a fare-evader armed with a knife in a busy subway station”. Nowhere there does it specify that the police were the ones that did the shooting.
Edit: The article seems to have been updated since my initial comment, the opening sentence now reads “Protesters in New York have demanded accountability after police fired at a suspected fare-evader in a busy subway station, hitting a bystander in the head”. However, the headline is also different, and is about protests, so I wonder if the whole article has been replaced.
OK… It is in the very first sentence of the article.
The other part they didn’t include in the headline is that the fare evader pulled a knife when the police stopped him. This is also in the first sentence of the article.
The “knife” they mysteriously haven’t been able to find?
No it isn’t. The first sentence is “New York police have defended their actions after a bystander was shot in the head as two officers tackled a fare-evader armed with a knife in a busy subway station”. Nowhere there does it specify that the police were the ones that did the shooting.
Edit: The article seems to have been updated since my initial comment, the opening sentence now reads “Protesters in New York have demanded accountability after police fired at a suspected fare-evader in a busy subway station, hitting a bystander in the head”. However, the headline is also different, and is about protests, so I wonder if the whole article has been replaced.
So, what’s your point?
Any of this change the innocence of the person they shot in the head??