Twenty minutes passed between the time USSS snipers first spotted Crooks on the roof and the time shots were fired at the former president, new information shows.
When did this become about investigators following leads? This was about ABC reporting a detail that added nothing important to the story and the lack of it would have taken nothing important from the story.
Investigators aren’t perfect, and yeah you don’t know what small detail is important toll investigators check. What’s wrong with journalists doing their own investigating? It actually has lead to results police/investigators missed before.
We only know it’s not important in hindsight, it could still be important since they haven’t found it as you said. So you are making claims it’s not when we don’t even know yet….
Did we know it was unnecessary at the time? Or only after the fact?
You’re putting future knowledge on the topic.
I’m sorry I must have been sleeping during that specific topic, but you must have been asleep during comprehension and understating class. And asleep during the tracking leads and being thorough part of the classes….
Don’t take shots that are way off base dude, even in journalism they teach to track down every lead as well. Again, the knowledge at the time was they didn’t know it was unnecessary, so to not include it could potentially be dangerous to the public as well.
At what time? At the time of writing the article? Yes. Because it neither adds to nor takes away anything from the story as written in the article, as I said. There is nothing about that detail that enhances the rest of the article at all.
I just don’t understand why you’re so fired up and bothering to argue about it then? Seems super trivial if you thought it neither adds nor takes away. Your only point in this argument is that the article could have left out some detail, for what, to be a little bit shorter??
I do get your overalll point, and if it was a random mass shooting, I’d agree that we don’t need every little detail about the shooter’s life story. There is some nuance to the fact that this was the attempted assassination of a former president, so it is going to be one of the biggest news stories in the US, and they’re going to report all kinds of details about his life.
But the detail that he bought a ladder that morning is, in my opinion, relevant whether he ultimately brought it with him or not, and not a random detail. His activities leading up to the attempted assassination are relevant to understanding his thinking and mindset. It sheds light into how much prior planning or thought went into it.
Fair enough. Police will disclose and journalists will often report the number of weapons and ammo or any explosive devices found at the perpetrator’s home, even if they were not brought to the scene or used in the crime. I think the ladder is a detail in the same vein because it is equipment that he had available to him.
When did this become about investigators following leads? This was about ABC reporting a detail that added nothing important to the story and the lack of it would have taken nothing important from the story.
Investigators aren’t perfect, and yeah you don’t know what small detail is important toll investigators check. What’s wrong with journalists doing their own investigating? It actually has lead to results police/investigators missed before.
We only know it’s not important in hindsight, it could still be important since they haven’t found it as you said. So you are making claims it’s not when we don’t even know yet….
Yeesh dude.
This is also not about journalists doing investigating. This is about putting an unnecessary detail in a story.
Omitting unnecessary details is one of the first things you learn in a journalism class. It was not a necessary detail for the readers.
Did we know it was unnecessary at the time? Or only after the fact?
You’re putting future knowledge on the topic.
I’m sorry I must have been sleeping during that specific topic, but you must have been asleep during comprehension and understating class. And asleep during the tracking leads and being thorough part of the classes….
Don’t take shots that are way off base dude, even in journalism they teach to track down every lead as well. Again, the knowledge at the time was they didn’t know it was unnecessary, so to not include it could potentially be dangerous to the public as well.
At what time? At the time of writing the article? Yes. Because it neither adds to nor takes away anything from the story as written in the article, as I said. There is nothing about that detail that enhances the rest of the article at all.
I just don’t understand why you’re so fired up and bothering to argue about it then? Seems super trivial if you thought it neither adds nor takes away. Your only point in this argument is that the article could have left out some detail, for what, to be a little bit shorter??
I do get your overalll point, and if it was a random mass shooting, I’d agree that we don’t need every little detail about the shooter’s life story. There is some nuance to the fact that this was the attempted assassination of a former president, so it is going to be one of the biggest news stories in the US, and they’re going to report all kinds of details about his life.
But the detail that he bought a ladder that morning is, in my opinion, relevant whether he ultimately brought it with him or not, and not a random detail. His activities leading up to the attempted assassination are relevant to understanding his thinking and mindset. It sheds light into how much prior planning or thought went into it.
I’m not fired up, I’m just responding to you. You keep asking me questions. The polite thing is to answer.
Fair enough. Police will disclose and journalists will often report the number of weapons and ammo or any explosive devices found at the perpetrator’s home, even if they were not brought to the scene or used in the crime. I think the ladder is a detail in the same vein because it is equipment that he had available to him.