* "22-year-old man dead after an officer-involved shooting on Friday."
* Or even more mangled: "An officer-involved shooting involving a 22-year-old man occurred on Friday."
In such a scenario, the language makes sense.
(If not, then you should specific so...)
A huge chunk, just by volume, of news comes from the local crime beat. That means journalists need to be on friendly terms with cops, because they usually have a near-monopoly on this information and can choose to give it to someone more pliant.
So that's why you get tortured headlines like 'Bystander killed by bullet in officer-involved shooting' - maybe the editor is a lawn-order authoritarian, maybe not, but they definitely don't want their sources to dry up.
this is beyond what one individual has done, there are levels of involvment.
this crime was enabled by others.
On the face of it, the guy is just a random psychopath hacking women Snapchat accounts and using their explicit pictures to blackmail them.
It’s disgusting but it wouldn’t be extraordinary if he didn’t also manage to become part of the police. You have to wonder how someone with this particular psychological profile actually got hired.
They explicitly look for this type of person to hire.