SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Four police officers and an unknown number of civilians have been hurt in an "active shooter" incident in the US city of Colorado Springs, police say.
Officers were exchanging fire with a gunman inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, police Lt Catherine Buckley said.
It was unclear if hostages had been taken, she said.
The city's Penrose hospital said it had received six patients, but did not say whether they were civilians or police.
The situation was still active and roads were closed, the city's police said in a tweet.
"We do not have the shooter at this point but we do have all of our resources brought to bear," Lt Buckley told local TV.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
"Active Shooter" in Colorado Springs
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 107 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
If the thunder don't get you, then the lightning will.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Friday November 27 2015, @11:10PM
This thread is going to degrade really fast... I don't know if we are served at all by these stories. There is no angle here, all we got is a giant bait hook.
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:01AM
Reality, the ultimate clickbait.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:41AM
Your name says it all.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:17AM
This thread is going to degrade really fast... I don't know if we are served at all by these stories. There is no angle here, all we got is a giant bait hook.
If you think so, why read and post in it? There are plenty of other stories on the front page. If they don't interest you, I suggest you submit a story you'd like to discuss.
What is more, even if the discussion does degrade, that's what the moderation system is for. Just read at +3 or higher and you'll likely avoid that which you don't want to see.
To paraphrase Justice Jackson, the remedy for bad speech is more speech, not censorship. I say, let 'em have at it. The Marketplace of Ideas [wikipedia.org] will identify that which has merit.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:47AM
I posted mostly so people know not everyone is for this type of story. Even if it was super important (which it is not because it's another nut with a gun story), posting it while it is happening, before we have any, let alone all, the facts is just like building a coliseum for a flame war. People do not know exactly what the motives are behind the actions of the shooter, and thus are going to run in here with their agenda and make up facts to fit their point of view.
You can say that it is all fine and good, you are just allowing people to express themselves. But to me it seems like no pushing for more factual or objective discussion instead of flamewars does not do this site any good. There is plenty of sites that already cater to this type of nonsense, mainly all the comment sections on all the news sites. At very least we should strive to not be like the green site, which started to become filled with nonsense like this.
Also this site does not have as many active posters or mods that browsing at +3 makes more good and thought-provoking experience. There is not enough comments overall, and the ones rated highest usually tell one of the jackasses off, so I end up reading their stupid comment as well.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 28 2015, @05:07AM
Fair enough.
I take your point, but I won't second guess n1 for posting this story.
Whether or not we have enough information to post interesting and informed comments is a concern, but it's not like most people even bother to read TFA anyway. Just sayin'.
There are a significant number of people who complain that SN isn't on top of breaking news. There are others (yourself included) who would rather SN be more measured in the stories they choose to post, and when.
It says a lot about your affection for SN that you care enough to complain.
I'd point out that given the user base, it's unlikely that everyone will be happy with every editorial decision.
For my part, I think the editors do a creditable job and deserve to be lauded for their tireless, unpaid work. Are they perfect? No.
My suggestion about submitting articles wasn't just snark. If there are topics you'd like to see addressed, then let's have them and create a good discussion.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr