The description was, for Austin, sufficiently specific to drastically narrow down the candidate pool of lookalikes. Keep in mind, this armed and dangerous mass shooter was still at large amongst the public. At what point do the scales tip in favor of safety and caution over "perpetuating stereotypes"?
> this armed and dangerous mass shooter was still at large amongst the public
And quickly picked up from his summer school class in Kileen.
The phrase mass shooter seems to be a suitcase phrase, a lot of different meanings are packed into the same scary words. Additional information is needed to understand the risk profile. Was the mass shooter on a continuous rampage, or performed a horrific act from which they fled, or periodically performs the same act? It seems in this case there was a mass shooting from which the suspect(s) fled. What is the risk profile to address in such a case and what tradeoffs are socially acceptable and feasible to address the risk?
A-AS made a call to not describe the suspect and also a call to perform some virtue signaling as justification. I think the former is reasonable given the risk profile but the latter is a poor reason outside the specific circumstances.
