The boy attack stabbed another man in an incident police said had the “hallmarks” of terrorism but was yet to be declared a terrorist act.
Western Australia police shot dead a “radicalized” 16-year-old boy on Saturday night after he stabbed a man in Perth.
State Premier Roger Cook said the teenager attacked a man and then “rushed” at police officers, armed with a kitchen knife.
The police responded by shooting him twice with Tasers before firing a single fatal shot.
Why are “hallmarks”, “radicalized” and “rushed” all in quotes? I could see an argument for radicalized, but hallmarks of terrorism is pretty standard stuff, and rushing is just a basic English language verb, synonymous with running. Odd to emphasize them as quotes.
They are quotes surrounded by quotation marks.
The newspaper isn’t an authority on radicalization, they are quoting a source.
Then a lot more should be within quotes. How do they know he was armed with a knife, were they there watching?
Go learn about journalistic practices in headlines and titles.
A claim is a claim. The attacker “rushing” is no different from the attacker being armed with a “knife”. Both are quotes from the police.
Again, just go look up the standards.
Not sure why you’re trying to convince me it should be different, I’m not gonna change it even if I agreed.
You responded to me, I am defending my statement.
The article is inconsistent with standard practices, by only selectively putting quote marks around certain parts of officers claims. Apparently pointing this out bothers you.
No, you haven’t grasped the concept and I implored you to seek and authoritative source.
Yeah, you’re just pulling shit out of your ass. If you’re claiming “an authoritative source” backs your argument, it’s on you to support your claim instead of tossing out “do your own research” accusations.