Two children were found locked inside a barn in West Virginia without any running water or bathroom facilities and their adoptive parents are now facing felony child neglect charges, the Kanawha County Sheriff’s Office says.
An investigation was launched Monday just before 6 p.m. after authorities received a 911 call regarding the welfare of the children, according to a news release from the sheriff’s office.
A sheriff’s deputy went to the barn in Sissonville and forced her way inside to find a boy and girl in the 20-foot by 14-foot room, the release said.
The children were locked inside without access to water, a bathroom, food or adequate hygienic care items, authorities said. At the main residence, another small child was found locked inside alone, the release stated.
Native speakers of the English language: By reading the headline did you know exactly who was locked in the barn? And if yes, tell me, a non native speaker, by which rule do I have to read headlines like this to not be totally confused. (I thought the parents were the ones who got locked until I read the headline a third time.)
Edit: Thank you for all the input and thoughts
It could be either but it wouldn’t make sense for the kids to get charged with child neglect for doing that to their parents.
I am a native speaker and spent a good 15 seconds trying to figure out why parents being locked in a barn meant neglect was happening.
I’m learning German, which wouldn’t have this issue. I’m sure other languages have ways to avoid such confusion.
It’s talking about the children because there’s no break
The adoptive parents of two children, found locked
Or
The adoptive parents of two children were found locked
Would mean it’s about the parents being locked up.
But be cause “found locked” comes immediately after “two children” we know the children are the subject.
English is nutty, most native speakers can’t explain the rules, because we just do it instinctively at this point. It’s a mismatch of a bunch of languages so it’s also a mismatch of different sets of rules.
It’s compact because it’s a headline.
You can’t tell who was locked in the barn from first part of the headline but when you read the bit about them being charged it can only refer to the parents, so the “locked in a barn” bit must be describing the kids and not the parents.
deleted by creator
I don’t tend to agree. A similar sentence could be; “Owner of Maserati found drunk in river charged with disorderly conduct.” Similar structure but less confusing because the Maserati can’t be drunk so the statement re charges must relate to the owner. In the present headline the “locked in barn” could equally relate to both parents or children, it is only the fact that child negligence is mentioned that you can surmise that the kids were the ones locked in. Grammatically, the sentence could be better as I write above.
deleted by creator
in context, it was clear.
but if you were scrolling and only saw up to ‘… west virginia’ to begin with…
english sure is fun!
Look at the mug shot and interpret for the worst case - the kids being the ones locked in a barn.
I am a native speaker, and I read it correctly the first time. Parents locking themselves inside a barn doesn’t really make sense.
The wording was bad, no doubt. I had to read it several times to make sense of the headline.
I think the headline needs a comma or two
It’s a confusing headline that forces the reader to consider context.
A better headline would have been;
Adoptive parents facing felony child neglect charges after 2 children found locked inside a barn in West Virginia, authorities say.
Same. I went “fuck, the poor sods somehow got themselves locked up and 'murica is being 'murica”.
0 days
This guy saw the arrest coming.
Probably voted for Bernie, fucking socialists
/s
i don’t get the joke
No one does because it was a terrible joke…
Am I out of the loop on something? Did a Bernie supporter do something similarly before? The article doesn’t touch on politics.
It was sarcasm. I guess i did need the tag… I’ll edit!
Sarcasm only works when there’s something being exaggerated. In this case, it’s just confusing.
I think part of the confusion is there isn’t any context that would set up for someone equating them to a fans of Bernie under the guise of someone with contrary political beliefs, as a meansof deriding those with that contrary belief.
The whole thing just kind of comes straight out of left field.
deleted by creator
Oh, was that needed? Pretty heavy handed if you ask me. Those are obviously some of the white supremes.
