Prosecutors have charged a Metropolitan Police officer with murder after he shot rapper Chris Kaba in London last year.

    • kartonrealista@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ha ha very funny. Except this is grammatically correct and not ambiguous. It would work with your joke interpretation if it said “who shot dead, unarmed, black man”

      • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree that this is unambiguous, I was also confused reading this headline. It’s odd wording. It may be technically correct but that doesn’t mean it’s unambiguous.

          • FaceDeer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Or “shot dead an unarmed black man”. Three additional characters would have fixed this. I’ve long been frustrated by the journalistic style of removing every possible word from headlines. We’re no longer reading these things printed on dead trees, there’s no extra ink being spent or space wasted.

            • Polar@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Many apps or websites cut titles off, though. It’s important to keep them short.

              I wish more people followed proper journalistic formats. Frustrates me when the first sentence is supposed to have everything you need to know - who, what, where, when, why, how - but instead these gen Z journalists think they should bury the details 5 paragraphs deep.

              The proper way to write an article is to give the reader everything they need to know from the first sentence, and then expand in detail with each following paragraph, from most important to least.

        • naught@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Dead” and “unarmed” are adjectives and if they were being used like you thought, they should have a comma between them. I agree that it’s potentially vague, but if you read it in your BBC broadcaster voice it should help

          • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s ambiguous. Adjectives don’t need a comma like that, especially when there are two. You don’t say “look at that small, red, fire hydrant”, you just say “look at that small red fire hydrant” (and technically, you could call “fire” an adjective there too).

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is absolutely ambiguous diction.

        “…who shot and killed unarmed black man…” would have been substantially more specific and readable without potential confusion.

        • Strykker@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except “shot and killed” it self can be ambiguous. What did he kill them with? Did he shoot him then kill him with a knife?

          Shot dead, means the shooting is what killed the man.

        • Polar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          In school you learn to keep titles short. You added a lot of filler words that can ruin the headline on apps that cut them off, or printed media.

          Shot dead is correct.

          • nudny ekscentryk@szmer.info
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            “shot dead” is a phrasel verb, therefore it can (I would argue in this particular context it should) be split:

            shot (whom?) dead.

            I shot him dead

            He shot his wife dead

            Cop shot unarmed black man dead (including press-specific omitting of articles because English is stupid)

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            And yet, we wouldn’t be having this discussion if the wording was actually unambiguous.

            I removed one word and added two. That’s not “a lot of filler words”.

      • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Quick tip - if the majority of people who read something find it ambiguous, it is. Plain and simple - especially for languages like English that don’t have a central authority for setting language rules.

        • Mr_Blott
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Quick tip - People with a poor grasp of un-simplified English are not the majority

        • Lazylazycat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s written by a British person in OG English. This phrase isn’t unambiguous here and it took me a sec to figure out why people were confused. It’s just a syntax difference but surely you can figure it out with context clues, just like I did with your interpretation.