tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post2334450224998037045..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Point of Impact: Interview with Eva Ruth MoravecGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-24910482201825370652016-10-11T11:48:26.031-05:002016-10-11T11:48:26.031-05:00Thanks. Appreciate the post.Thanks. Appreciate the post.paprglhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14103421928188636971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-74901820849754021582016-10-10T14:23:23.262-05:002016-10-10T14:23:23.262-05:00FWIW, I tend to use "police shootings," ...FWIW, I tend to use "police shootings," though it's a bit ambiguous, leaving to context whether police are doing the shooting or the ones being shot. Amanda tends to use "officer-involved" because that's the language in the statutes that require reporting, so it's less ambiguous and better-defined. I don't consider either version right or wrong.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-77095800781699505532016-10-10T12:22:33.015-05:002016-10-10T12:22:33.015-05:00It seems it would be shorter to say "police s...It seems it would be shorter to say "police shootings". Who makes newsreaders and bloggers add all those extra syllables no matter how many ad-revenue seconds are burned? Did the FOP demand it? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com