Raid “kills bugs dead?” Not on my watch.
Posted by Office-Bob on 08 Mar 2008 at 12:20 pm | Tagged as: General Craziness, Rants
This just in from the “Eats, Shoots and Leaves” department:
Those who know me well are aware that it drives me up the wall when I see or hear news reports that use the phrases “shot dead” or “shot to death”*
because, last time I checked, it was highly unlikely someone could be shot alive or shot to life.
When I encounter these words I wonder how difficult or time-wasting it would be to just use “shot and killed” or “shot and wounded,” which convey the same information but suit my small, self-centered world and help keep my blood pressure down?
I know, it’s minor – some might even say trivial – but that’s just how I roll.
I was reminded of this again today when I saw the following headline in a local paper:
Chinese police shoot dead tourist bus hijacker
When I read this headline my thoughts were:
1) How could a dead person manage to hijack a tourist bus in the first place?
2) If the hijacker were dead, why would the police even bother shooting him?
3) Is this the start of the inevitable zombie apocalypse?
Another paper, while still managing to piss me off, said it somewhat more accurately:
Chinese police shoot tourist bus hijacker dead
Okay…we’re still dealing with the “is it possible to shoot someone alive?” question, but at least it’s an improvement over the idea of zombie bus hijackings.
Here’s how I’d have written the headline:
Chinese police shoot, kill tourist bus hijacker
See what I did there? I switched one 4-letter word for another and added a single comma. Come on, news writers and editors, is it really that hard?
*Insert appropriate weapon reference: stabbed, poisoned, strangled, bludgeoned with a rabid porcupine, etc.
Popularity: 41% [?]
What about beaten to death? Or shot until dead?
I have the same issue with “beaten to death,” though I suppose if you manage to restart someone’s heart by thumping on their chest that could be considered “beaten to life.”
“Shot until dead” seems better at first as it implies a progression of action (i.e. the first time you shoot someone they may only be wounded but if you keep at it, eventually you’ll kill them unless you’re a really bad shot, give up too soon or are using very small caliber ammo), but it also has an illogical counterpoint (”shot until alive”).