Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SpinCharm t1_iugtqlc wrote

What a strange title. Died by being hit with a police baton. Not “woman dies from police beating her to death”


Stormy-Skyes t1_iugwsw1 wrote

Right? She didn’t happen to be killed by an unattended baton, she was killed by police beating her.


squidguy t1_iuh4pwr wrote

Passive headline voice used to blunt the effect of state violence. It happens all the time in America, but now that you notice it, you’ll be seeing it everywhere.


quichemiata t1_iuh8bw8 wrote

Daily nation Pakistan is the publisher, it was likely on purpose


jamesbideaux t1_iuhbd8y wrote

or it's the result of being translated.


chadenright t1_iuido0a wrote

No, if it said something like, "Iranian police beat, murder 17-year-old student" I could understand translation issues. But either the translator got creative with the title, or there is no mention of the active, participating killer in the actual title - just the murder weapon.


SardScroll t1_iuji0gh wrote

There's more to it than that. There are tricks to writing head lines, especially if you care about clicks/read/papers sold (which to be fair, it is a headline. It's supposed to be an attention grabbing summery, not a detailed account. That's what the body is (supposed to be) for).

Active voice requires the subject (usually the first words in a sentence) to be the Iranian police, rather than the victim.

Iranian police, being violent oppressive tyrants = we know, yawn

17 yo student, dying = investment, care, click.

Same information, different focus, different reaction.


Independent_Pear_429 t1_iuhdduq wrote

That how journalists normally report deaths by cops. "Suspect dies after altercation with police in own home"


sillypicture t1_iuhy74c wrote

No no, person dies by hitting the police baton with her head with lethal intent.


reddititty69 t1_iui7288 wrote

Iranian Police beat child to death for protesting against the Iranian police beating children to death.


Elbradamontes t1_iuhog6e wrote

I think it’s to focus on the baton. My reaction was towards the dangers of police with batons. Like when someone is killed by a non-lethal weapon it’s important to point out it is lethal. What if it was just a single crowd control swing? Isn’t that noteworthy?


kaisadilla_ t1_iuigr9j wrote

tbh that's not relevant. A baton is non-lethal because you can use it to control someone without killing them. If you kill someone with it, either you did it on purpose or you were negligent.

This is like saying handcuffs are lethal because you can strangle someone with them. Yes, you can, but it's not how they should be used.


IkLms t1_iuj6rpb wrote

A baton is no different from a bat. A single 'crowd control' swing is lethal force when it's aimed at a head which would be likely here if it was only one swing.

But it's still deflecting.

Using passive voice on this is trying to control the narrative and make it seem like an unfortunate accident instead of an intentional act by the police leading to death


Wit-wat-4 t1_iui0hdo wrote

I agree but I do wonder if it’s a translation issue. I speak a middle-eastern language and it’s very common to say “police’s baton kills” or “at the hands of the police”. I don’t know how to explain it but mentioning the weapon doesn’t remove the agency and in that language it would indeed make me think of a bloody beating with a baton. Reading it in English though it sounds like a random baton slipped and fell off a window and landed on someone or something.


ailee43 t1_iujkc50 wrote

"woman murdered by police with baton" you mean.


huggybear0132 t1_iuitebj wrote

I mean the source is pakistani... not exactly known for their raging feminism either.


[deleted] t1_iuh99fc wrote



[deleted] t1_iuh9izb wrote



[deleted] t1_iuh9o3q wrote



IamWarlok t1_iuhavs4 wrote

They’re right tho. It was harsh but fair.


CaptainC0medy t1_iuhf071 wrote

The first sentence was right. The rest of it was pretty ott


james_hamilton1234 t1_iuhkvtv wrote

Meh not really. It's not like you had to search through a newspaper to find the article, it was right there. One click. Much work I'm sure ......

Also just to be clear, you're saying you just read a headline and run with it so if the headline is disingenuous or contains misinformation, that is simply all the information you gathered on the topic before running with it? This is literally how misinformation is spread.

You could have gotten away with the stupid comment if it wasn't for us meddling informed readers (Scooby doo reference - I'd post a wikipedia link but ... Well you're not gonna click on it are you)


CaptainC0medy t1_iuhqvax wrote

I do appreciate scooby doo, but no

I said I didn't know if it was 1 hit or 100, all that needs to be said is "it's in the article" and that's it, someone name-calling is immature.

Defending name-calling is worse.

It's one thing to inform someone, another to be abusive, and another to defend it.

But then this is reddit.


james_hamilton1234 t1_iuhugi9 wrote

> reddit

Which you didn't bother to do before jumping in with your hot take and then getting mad when you get called a dumbass for it


CaptainC0medy t1_iui4dxp wrote

Hot take, I said from the title you can't say if it's 1 hit or 100.

Keep making drama.


james_hamilton1234 t1_iui5sqc wrote

> A single hit isn't a beating. That said no idea if it was 1 hit or 100

This would be the hot take - I'm curious, where is the part about you saying form the title you couldn't tell? Or was that the later comment where you were telling us you didn't read the article ...


CaptainC0medy t1_iuibgf5 wrote

"That said no idea if it was 1 hit or 100," this tells you I am referencing the headline and not the article, didn't read it.

I can comment on the headline without reading the article, because the op if this threading said it was an odd phrasing of the heading.


hunisher1 t1_iui6m2k wrote

Bro I don’t know why you’re so upset and still trying to defend yourself. You looked a fool and people called you out on it… it’s all good, maybe read the article before posting some stupid shit next time?

It’s like you grabbed a cactus with your bare hand and act BAFFLED that it hurt you.


CaptainC0medy t1_iuiayle wrote

Not upset, sticks and stones, just don't see why someone has to go john wick because I stated the headline doesn't state if it's 1 hit or 100, whether I read the article or not, I'm factually correct.


hunisher1 t1_iuigjs8 wrote

“John wick” that’s hilarious lmao. You’re still a dweeb though.


[deleted] t1_iuhenyw wrote



[deleted] t1_iuhexhc wrote



YouMakeMeSaaaaaad t1_iuhgn7v wrote

Stfu. People are dying and you are busy analyzing if it took one hit or multiple.... Stop typing and do some soul searching