From the Oregonian, a story that turns out far better than one might expect:
A man who was intoxicated and masturbating to pornography when he drove a stolen car through the crime scene tape surrounding the homicide of a teen-age boy last year will not have to register as a sex offender.
In case you don’t feel like actually reading the story, the once-intoxicated masturbator has been participating in drug treatment and has apparently cleaned up his life, leading to the judge allowing the man to withdraw his guilty plea for public indecency. Hooray for happy endings, right?
This article appears in Jul 26 – Aug 1, 2012.
Does anyone else find Dan’s summary of the article more than a little confusing? “leading to the judge declining to allowing the man to withdraw his guilty plea” … ?
J_in_Cochise: You’re right. That line makes no sense. I’ll fix it.
I’m convinced that the papers are hiring straight out of high school, with no journalism background. And they don’t keep the ‘old guys’ around long enough for them to impart some bit of their knowledge.
Over and over I find it necessary to read, then RE-read, several times, the brief head for a story. Sometimes it’s necessary to read the story, or at least part of it, in order to find out what the head-writer wanted to convey. One more word, even if you need to use a smaller type face, can make it understandable. An occational COMMA wouild help, too!