- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 23,058
Isn't it as opposed to a non-active shooter, meaning one who has been detained or killed?
If he is detained or killed, he is no longer a shooter at all.
The place it bothers me is mostly in news articles, which are almost always ex post facto, so the shooter has already been detained or killed. In my view, the only time use of the words "active shooter" are appropriate are when there is a actually, right this minute, a person wandering the premises shooting at people. That gives people in the immediate vicinity information that will allow them to take action. In the case of subsequent news articles, as the ones about the incident in Corpus Christi today, the word active is incorrect (redundant at best). How difficult is it to say "An armed assailant forced his way through the front gates of the base and shot two people today. He was killed/detained/whatever?" Jargon is rarely appropriate in a newspaper article.