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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      40
      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…

      • stopthatgirl7
        link
        fedilink
        371 year ago

        A cop is actually going to have to help people. That’s torture right there. This is clearly unconstitutional.

  • @pqdinfo
    link
    69
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    deleted by creator

    • snooggums
      link
      fedilink
      271 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
        link
        61 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.

      • @pqdinfo
        link
        3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        deleted by creator

        • Alien Nathan Edward
          link
          fedilink
          11 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.

        • snooggums
          link
          fedilink
          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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      171 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
      link
      111 year ago

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

    • @jeffwOPM
      link
      11
      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
      link
      5
      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.

      • @pqdinfo
        link
        -4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        deleted by creator

        • @SCB
          link
          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
      link
      fedilink
      4
      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.

    • @Elliott
      link
      41 year ago

      The wording is deliberate. “Hero cop was not assaulted by dangerous detainee”

  • @SulaymanF
    link
    641 year ago

    Nurses who accidentally poison patients go to jail, but cops get nothing but community service?

    • GladiusB
      link
      71 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
        link
        fedilink
        21 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
    link
    fedilink
    371 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.

    • snooggums
      link
      fedilink
      221 year ago

      A light punishment would be 10 years in prison for abusing their authority to put someone in harms way.

    • @Cryan24
      link
      11 year ago

      I assume a lawsuit will follow that will be severely punishing to the department and the officer ( hopefully the final figure has many zeros at the end)

      • @HoboFresh
        link
        171 year ago

        You mean the taxpayers, right? Police departments generally don’t pay out in lawsuits, that burden is shouldered largely by taxpayers.

  • @Poe
    link
    311 year ago

    Seems light

  • @Ejh3k
    link
    English
    211 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
      link
      14
      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
      link
      21 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.

  • Alien Nathan Edward
    link
    fedilink
    61 year ago

    Probation is how the justice system says “Do it again and someone might actually give a fuck”.

  • @Modern_medicine_isnt
    link
    11 year ago

    As always. Please read the article. The headline was written to generate the responses I have read so far. And of coourse the actual article explains the situation. The sentence seems a bit light to me given what I read, but it doesn’t say if the officer lost thier job or any other consequences that may have been additional factors. What it does say is the victim did not want the officer to go to jail. Thats pretty striking frankly. Tells me there is probably more going on than is written.

    • @SulaymanF
      link
      181 year ago

      Rios’ attorney also told the court that Rios did not feel strongly about Steinke serving jail time and felt “very sorry” for her instead.

      That’s not the same as what you said.

      • @Modern_medicine_isnt
        link
        11 year ago

        Nice, you read the article. My work here is done. Lol.
        True though, but a heck of a lot closer then the people who referred to female cop as a guy, and the victim as dead.

    • @jeffwOPM
      link
      141 year ago

      Dude left a guy on the tracks… even if that was… somehow an innocent mistake, someone could have died (and almost did die)

      • @Modern_medicine_isnt
        link
        61 year ago

        totally agree. Jusr tired of reading comments about how HE killed the person… when it was neither a he, nor was the person killed. And really I am tired of deceptive headlines designed to make people angry.