Police investigating woman found shot in chest

We’re following a breaking news situation on Lakeside Ave South near Frink Park involving a woman found shot in the chest. At this time, police are continuing to investigate the incident and we have no additional information about the circumstances.

According to Seattle Fire radio, a woman was shot in the chest in the 500 block of Lakeside Ave South and transported to Harborview in serious condition just before 1 PM Thursday afternoon.

0 thoughts on “Police investigating woman found shot in chest

  1. You need to remove the last statement:

    “We have not yet confirmed.. etc.”

    You need to remove it NOW.

  2. Read the article: A woman was found shot in the chest and taken to the hospital. These are facts. Anything else that is “not yet confirmed” has no place in a news article, and it is IRRESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM to publish it.

    If this forum wants to be takes seriously as outlet for NEWS and a publisher of JOURNALISTS, it has to maintain certain standards. Anything else is just neighborhood gossip.

  3. And who are you to judge? The publishing police? There is absolutely no conjecture in any of this, you need to relax.

  4. I’m sure this was a sensitive situation for OverSight. That said, I’m sure that OverSight would have wanted to be informed, in the event of an assasination (attempt) in the neighborhood. Demands aren’t the best way to get your result. Most of all, I’m sorry for this woman’s death, however it came to pass.

  5. Let us paint a scenario: You’re doing your dishes one evening, either in the sink or the dishwasher. You stick your hand in the soapy water or the dishwasher and gouge your wrist on a sharp knife. Ouch, it’s bad. Blood is gushing from your deep wound. You quickly dial 911 and the paramedics arrive, as well as the police, as well as a well-meaning staffer from the CDN who happens to hear the radio call on their scanner.

    The paramedics apply a bandage to your wrist and take you out to the ambulance for transport to the hospital. You’re shaken, pale, upset. The CDN staffer asks the paramedics what happened. They reply, “We can’t say anything.” The CDN staffer asks the police what happened. They say, “We can’t say anything.” A neighbor who happens to be watching tells the CDN staffer, “I’ll bet it was a suicide attempt. That person seemed depressed that last time I saw them.” The CDN staffer returns to the police and the paramedics and asks, “Was this a suicide attempt?” “We can’t say anything,” is their reply.

    The CDN staffer goes back to their computer and posts: “We have not yet confirmed if this was a self-inflicted [wound.]” Posts it for the entire planet to see. So, when you come back from the hospital, stitched up and healthy, you don’t just have to deal with cleaning up your bloody kitchen floor. You have to clean up all of the conjecture and innuendo and gossip and speculation about your accident amongst your friends, neighbors, and anyone on the planet who happened to read the post. An accident that could happen to any one of us.

    Someone asked if I would want to be informed if there was a shooter on the loose in the neighborhood. Yes, I would want to be informed, and the police would want me to be informed. And so the authorities would release such a warning. In this case, they did not. In fact, they released this as part of their statement today:

    “It was not immediately clear whether this was a suicide, accident or homicide[.]”

    That is a statement of fact. That is what the CDN should have/could have printed, if this was a forum where proper journalism is practiced. Or, they could have printed nothing. But to print what they did is irresponsible.

    Words have meaning, words have impact. Words in a public forum must be used in a responsible manner. If the Comments section of this post exploded with conjecture and gossip about the incident, we know to take that as the unmuzzled mutterings of anyone with an internet connection. When we see something in the News section, we expect the facts and nothing else.

  6. You know what, Oversight? You’re right. And I bet most people would agree with you.

    But I’ll say that my first response to your early comment was that you sounded demanding, bossy, and angry about something, but it wasn’t clear at all why you were angry and demanding. I know that’s not a response based on the situation or the facts, but I thought, “Is there a more pleasant way to do that, even if you’re upset?”

    Your accidental knife-cut scenario makes a lot of sense. I appreciate the time you took to explain yourself.

  7. Yes, neighbor, as I look back, you’re right – my initial post was direct and demanding, with no explanation. I thought that the line “We have not yet confirmed if…” was a clear breach of ethics and standards, and this was obvious to all. I acted as an editor in a newsroom would with their blue pencil – “This is out,” and it would be gone. Yes, there could have been a more pleasant, even-tempered, and complete response from me. A lesson learned – take a minute, take a breath – thank you for pointing that out.

  8. Oversight, we had the same intended meaning of the example statement you offer:
    “It was not immediately clear whether this was a suicide, accident or homicide[.]”

    Indeed, I was attempting to make it clear that there were alternative scenarios that *could* be happening while gathering information and broadcasting this report “live.”

    I don’t disagree that the way we reported that information was poorly executed. But your attack on the ethics and the standards behind the site are shortsighted.

  9. I completely agree that to say “We have not yet confirmed if this was a self-inflicted shooting” is to imply that it was, indeed, a self inflicted shooting. Otherwise, why not say “We have not yet confirmed if this was a drive by shooting” or “we have not yet confirmed if this was a domestic violence shooting”? Your implication was that it was indeed a self-inflicted shooting, and so a reader would be correct to wonder why, if you have no information to substantiate that guess, you’re posting conjecture.

  10. Well aware that I’ve invited piling on but your interpretation is incorrect.

    My decision was to not list a series of conjectured possible scenarios. However, the way I did decide to phrase the statement left interpretation open to what you have written here. It was not the best way to explain the situation and I would have been better served to simply list the alternatives.

  11. Probably would have been best either state all possibilities or none. I was one of the folks wondering why the huff in the beginning. I interpreted the original article phrasing as “we really are pretty sure there’s not a mad man with a gun running around, but we can’t be totally sure….” I thought it was informing people to watch out, but not panic.

    Then again, I get reasoning behind OverSite now that he/she’s taken the time to calmly explain though too. It’s definitely a sensitive subject, so probably better to not bias it one way or the other when it is unclear.

  12. First off, thanks again to the CDN for doing a great job keeping the neighorhood informed.

    I find the complaints about the one line in this story to be ridiculus. Fortunately, I was able to read “We have not confirmed” and knew anything after that had not been confirmed.

    If you want to provide feedback, be constructive and give those who give us so much information a break. I have never seen a bio claiming any sort of training or expertise in journalism associated with any article I have read here. If anyone wants set the bar for facts, standards, ethics or journalism, please publish links to your reporting and let’s see what you got.

  13. As for OverSight’s complaints, some of which are very valid, I still see the site for what it is: a merger of journalism with community posts. After all, it’s an open forum. Anyone can post a story about what’s going on with their church, a school, a non-profit in the area, crime, local businesses, etc. Some of those stories are not going to be “news” stories, and they’re not going to be journalistic in nature.

    There are a few of us who write from a journalistic perspective on behalf of the editor, and when we do that the stories we write are usually edited in a professional manner, with wording that you’d see on any other news site, AP stylistic writing, etc. Justin is great to work with and I appreciate his continued dedication to CDNews, especially considering he runs Capitol Hill’s news site as well. And, of course, this is “Community Member Liz” writing this comment, not “Journalist Liz”. Because, like I said, this is a community news blog, and that’s the nature of it.

  14. Yes, the correction is an improvement over the first. CD News has been doing an awesome job of reporting and promoting collaborative efforts for communications in our neighborhood/s. Thank you for addressing the issue and offering a correction. I also agree with cdphotog that it is important to know that there is probably not a crazed killer running about in the neighborhood. Unnecessary panic and fear can do further damage.

  15. Talked to SPD. They have nothing new to report other than what is on the blotter.