“Fake U.S. marshal convicted after pulling gun in Chicago theater”
“A Will County man who drew his concealed handgun and announced he was a deputy U.S. marshal after an annoyed Chicago movie audience told him to stop talking on his phone was convicted Wednesday of impersonating a federal agent.”
I will stipulate that in this case, the weapon was “concealed.” But since words have meaning, why was the word “concealed” used instead of perhaps, “hidden”, “unseen” or even “the handgun that he was illegally carrying.”
I will admit that when I first read the print article, I thought right away that this was a case of an person in Illinois that had a CCL and did something incredibly stupid. (Those are the kind of CCL carriers that should have NEVER got it.)
Try as I might, I was unable to find any mention of the suspect having a CCl in Illinois. I did find a person with the same name in Illinois that lost his credentials for TRAINING CCL’s.
Highly trained and professional journalists go to school to learn how to write news. Surely they must be educated in proper word usage.
Was “concealed” deliberately used to conflate shootings with people that lawfully carry?
Was it ignorance??? Is it possible there are professional journalists that presume that anyone that has a gun on them can carry? Two people collaborated on this news story and I can only presume it went past at least one proofreader and hopefully an editor?? How would it be possible that all those would think that “concealed” was the correct word.
Words mean things.