this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
36 points (92.9% liked)
Offbeat
1275 readers
6 users here now
The world is a weird place filled with even weirder news.
Post your funny, weird, strange, or quirky news stories here!
Lemmy.ca Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
Community Rules
- No editorialized titles
- No satire news sites (The Beaverton, The Onion, etc...)
- No politics
- Submissions must be no older than 2 months (i.e. the article should be "recent" news)
Similar Communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Such odd phrasing; did she shoot the monkey or just beat it with the shotgun? It’s hard to tell because of the word choice “struck”.
I parse this as "the woman used the shotgun to hit the monkey." If any other meaning was intended, the word choice is poor.
Yes, but hit it with what? A bullet or with the shotgun itself? See, it doesn’t say that she shot it, and one might conclude that, since it didn’t die immediately and survived long enough to be taken to a vet hospital where it later died, perhaps she just used the shotgun to savagely beat the animal.
I mean, if the monkey attacked her, she might not be able to get off a shot since shotguns are almost useless in close quarters. She might have had to use the shotgun to bludgeon the monkey until it stopped attacking.
"The woman used the shotgun to bludgeon the monkey."
If they had meant that she shot the monkey, I would be surprised if they used any phrasing other than "The woman grabbed a shotgun and shot the monkey."
Maybe I'm not interpreting what happened correctly, but to me it seems clear.