A double homicide police are investigating in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, has turned out to be at least one part justifiable as the second homicide was committed in self-defense. More astonishingly, the defender was a child, protecting two women apparently caught up as part of a domestic dispute. The attacker had already shot and killed a 31-year-old woman who initially provided shelter to the women and child trying to keep them all safe.
Here are how events played out Sunday, Jan. 7 according to PA Homepage:
According to the District Attorney’s Office of Northumberland County, an investigation was conducted into a double homicide on Malta Road in Lower Mahanoy Township that occurred around 5:00 p.m. Sunday.
Through further investigation, Pennsylvania State Police stated a fight occurred earlier in the day between two women, including a juvenile, and 47-year-old Tracey Adams. The women escaped and ran to 31-year-old Brandi Hauck’s home, troopers said.
Police say Adams drove to Hauck’s house, brandished a pistol, and demanded Hauck leave. Adams then shot Hauck in the head through the front door and she died on the scene from her injuries, PSP stated.
Adams forcibly entered the house with the alleged intent to cause death or injury to those inside the home, investigators stated.
Detectives believe a child, acting in self-defense, shot Adams in the head and killed him while he was shielding the two women behind him.
The DA in the case told news that the child’s actions were justifiable given the situation and the investigation is still ongoing.
Misleading text. “a fight occurred earlier in the day between two women, including a juvenile, and 47-year-old Tracey Adams.” And then…”Detectives believe a child, acting in self-defense, shot Adams in the head and killed him while he was shielding the two women behind him.” HIM! The article states the fight was between two women, one of which later in the article turns into a guy. Must have transitioned during the event.
Sorry to ask, did CNN write this story? Maybe MSN, NBC, ABC? No. What was I thinking if they had written the story the child – murderer would have been toting a ghost AR-30 Assualt weapon that can shoot 100 rounds per clip. Proof read.
there wasn’t any transitioning. Tracey Adams was male. he was fighting the two women who had the child with them. they fled with child to home of Hauck who Adam’s killed. in defending the two ‘fleeing’ women the child shot Adams.
I think it is called reading comprehension. Read slow
GW is correct, the article is written extremely poorly.
The last sentence actually says that the BG is the good guy, which I rather doubt is the intent.
If it is the intent, then the sentence is nearly unacceptably vague. If such a suggestion is not the intent and the juvenile was shielding the two women from the aggressor before popping the BG’s top, then the author’s grammar is a nearly capital offense against written language in general.
A complete lack of understanding of how grammar functions is the culprit in that sentence and possibly the real criminal in this article.
I don’t generally care about grammar or punctuation when it comes to comments or notes but when someone’s getting paid to write articles for consumption by other people, articles where the point is to inform the reader, this level of incompetence is nearly irredeemably damnable.
This was a member submitted item.
Cut them some slack.
Then there’s an editorship issue.
Or we can just cut some slack, I guess. Reducing standards never harmed anyone or anything, right? Boeing’s planes are fucking tip-top these days, eh?
Agree. Needlessly confusing. Bad need of copy editing.
I think you mistook the child as a she since one of the women was initially identified as a juvenile. I had a hard time with it, too, but I think this is the full cast:
Tracy Adams, a man
two women (one being an older teen aka juvenile)
Brandi Hauk, the woman homeowner
a boy (aka child)
“I think you mistook the child as a…”
It’s not an issue of me misunderstanding. I’m reasonably confident then and now that I know what was intended because I’m fairly experienced with dogshit English and had read the previous paragraphs.
That however, is immaterial. Let’s take a trip back in time to 3rd grade where we should have all learned basic writing and other life skills.
“Detectives believe a child, acting in self-defense, shot Adams in the head and killed him while he was shielding the two women behind him.”
In English, and particularly in written English, pronouns refer to the last noun in the sentence, always and forever. Therefore, the due to the way this sentence is constructed the words “him” and “he” both refer to back to Adams.
So, what that sentence actually says is that Adams was shot in the head by a child, who was acting in self-defense, while Adams was “shielding” two women.
Shielding in the context of this story would mean something like “protecting” or “providing a protective cover”. These are the actions of a good guy, not a bad guy.
Therefore, our previously described bad guy, Tracey Adams, has somehow become a good guy shielding these women from the the child who is somehow acting in self-defense.
Yet we know that this isn’t the case because Adams is the bad guy due to his prior actions, notably in paragraph 3, and if he was actually shielding these women from harm the child couldn’t be acting in self-defense without a shitty novel’s worth of extremely unlikely circumstances and details which was skipped which, honestly, only makes this worse.
That’s not really open to interpretation. If we’re following the rules of English that’s what the quoted sentence actually says.
I am going to have to disagree with your reading comprehension comment, though I thought it a good zinger. I can read this article five different times and come to 5 different conclusions. For instance, was Hauck one of the two women who were in a fight, or did the two women run to Hauck’s house where Hauck was made unalive because she gave the two women and chow sanctuary? Next, “Detectives believe a child, acting in self-defense, shot Adams in the head and killed him while he was shielding the two women behind him.” Who was shielding the two women, Tracy Adams or the kid?” The structure of the sentence is twisted and misleading, back to my earlier point. I am kind of in awe of your ability to understand that article. My hat is off to you.
It could have been worded better, but most contributors here are amateurs.
I wouldn’t bust someone’s b@11s when they make the effort to take 10 minutes from their busy day to share with the group.
Nice sentiment. But what is the value of the article if it leaves you scratching your head as to what you just read and or conveys a completely twisted portrayal of the events? We want accuracy and to believe we can trust the story teller. And the part I am critiquing seems to have been a press release from state officials. Even if it is submitted by a “member” then it needs to be proofed by someone before publishing. Again, this is the level of work you would expect to see on CNN.
AI generated, I’ve noticed it can’t keep its stories straight.
A man was climbing a mountain when he fell out of the tree and died.
The story could have benefitted from having lil ‘d’s Alfred E. Neuman face icon pasted just before the start…
then we all would have appropriately ignored it.
RE: “Police say Adams drove to Hauck’s house, brandished a pistol, and demanded Hauck leave.”
The players are questionable however only a lowlife would crown themselves king and tell a homeowner to leave their home. Homeowner stood her ground no matter what. Perp received what he dished out, good shooting young man.
Define “child” for us, in this context. As we all know, the left’s gun archives often have 30 year old children being killed by rogue guns.
Lemme just do my own search here . . . I’m not finding answers, all I can find is the term “juvenile” used in multiple articles. Parents are in their 40s, the kid could be any age up to 17. I somehow don’t think this is a “child” as the word is commonly used. The term “teenage son” would be more appropriate, I think. Anyone with better info, please chime in.
below age 18 is a child.
25 is the new 17……….
Obama reset as age 25 is a child
punished for providing sanctuary.
don’t mess with a boy’s favorite aunty.
More headshots than The Departed.
Also, PA Homepage appears to be run by people who are masters at butchering English.
That’s true of most local newspapers these day…..run by illiterates.
Can’t comprehend Ordinary English, much less The King’s English.
Eats, shoots, and leaves.
https://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Commas-Difference/dp/0399244913
Its Panda moanium
Is that when they be makin’ lil’ pandas?
This article was poorly written. And I’m very curious to know what the age of the defender was???Because we have talked about children as young as 8 years old. That have used guns to defend their own lives and their parents lives.
With BB guns and real guns.
Yes on the need for writing that is much more clear.
So much is just slapped up on the web without much consideration. It makes a difference to the reader and to the perception of the quality of the site and community.
“So much is just slapped up on the web without much consideration.”
I was in school in the 60s. We were told to “write like you talk”.
That’s what the internet and social media have brought us.
Somehow, we understand people when they talk, but get confused when they write like they talk.
Sam, oh, the like horror if like today’s like youth like wrote like, like they like talk.
“Sam, oh, the like horror if like today’s like youth like wrote like, like they like talk.”
You could be right, you know.
Real quality journalism here! Knows the age of everyone but the “child”, more than a little odd.
Could the article be any more confusing? The news reporter’s grammar is all wrong.
“a fight occurred earlier in the day between two women, including a juvenile, and 47-year-old Tracey Adams.” Someone else pointed out that Tracey Adams is a man (which was impossible to tell by the poorly written news article). That means “two women, including a juvenile” means that one of the “women” is a a girl, so the child is apparently a girl. That’s how it’s worded.
Later, “Detectives believe a child, acting in self-defense, shot Adams in the head and killed him while he was shielding the two women behind him.”
The way this is worded (“killed him while he was shielding the two women behind him”) sounds like Adams was shielding the two women behind him when the child (a girl?) shot Adams. This makes it sound like the child (a girl?) is a murderer, as that’s what the sentence says, “killed him while he was shielding the two women behind him.”
But that can’t be what happened, because they say the child acted in self-defense!
I think they just worded it all wrong, and the child is actually a boy, and the child (not Adams) was shielding the two women behind the child.
This reporter doesn’t know how to write.
Could the article be any more confusing? The news reporter’s grammar and pronouns are all wrong.
“a fight occurred earlier in the day between two women, including a juvenile, and 47-year-old Tracey Adams.” Someone else pointed out that Tracey Adams is a man (which was impossible to tell by the poorly written news article). That means “two women, including a juvenile” means that one of the “women” is a a girl, so the child is apparently a girl. That’s how it’s worded.
Later, “Detectives believe a child, acting in self-defense, shot Adams in the head and killed him while he was shielding the two women behind him.”
The way this is worded (“killed him while he was shielding the two women behind him”) sounds like Adams was shielding the two women behind him when the child (a girl?) shot Adams. This makes it sound like the child (a girl?) is a murderer, as that’s what the sentence says, “killed him while he was shielding the two women behind him.”
But that can’t be what happened, because they say the child acted in self-defense!
I think they just worded it all wrong, and the child is actually a boy, and the child (not Adams) was shielding the two women behind the child.
This reporter doesn’t know how to write in English.
My comment keeps getting sent to moderation, and I have no idea why. Trying again.
Could the article be any more confusing?
“a fight occurred earlier in the day between two women, including a juvenile, and 47-year-old Tracey Adams.” Since Tracey Adams is a man, that means “two women, including a juvenile” means that one of the “women” is a a girl, so the child is apparently a girl.
Later, “Detectives believe a child, acting in self-defense, shot Adams in the head and killed him while he was shielding the two women behind him.”
The way this is worded (“killed him while he was shielding the two women behind him”) sounds like Adams was shielding the two women behind him when the child (a girl?) shot Adams. This makes it sound like the child (a girl?) committed m*rder as that’s what the sentence says, “killed him [Adams] while he [Adams] was shielding the two women behind him.”
But that can’t be what happened, because they say the child acted in self-defense!
I think they just worded it all wrong, and the child is actually a boy, and the child was the one shielding the two women behind himself.
This story kinda sinks dacian, the DUNDERHEAD and MINOR49er’s nonsense that firearms are rarely used in “self defense” scenarios.
Comments are closed.