Another robbery which “went wrong”
What on earth does the BBC mean by the sentence “Officers are treating the incident as a robbery which went wrong“? What does it take for a robbery to “go wrong”? Here’s my off-the-top-of-my-head list:
- the robbers fail to steal anything of any value.
- the robbers are caught in the act, overpowered and brought to justice.
These would be my key criteria for classing a robbery as one which “went wrong”, but there’s nothing in the report that indicates that either of these conditions were met.
Imagine a situation in which a group of special forces personnel break into a compound to rescue hostages. The captors awake and are shot by the rescuers who then proceed to free the hostages. Would we describe the action as “a hostage rescue which went wrong”. Far from it, it would be one that went very well indeed.
Of course, if the thieves (if indeed, that’s what they were) really did fail to steal anything of any value, then I guess the robbery did go wrong. But I’m willing to bet that that’s not what was implied in this report, or in the innumerable others in which this perverse, trite expression has been used. What the Beeb report seems to be implying, inadvertently or otherwise, is that somehow the intruder or intruders didn’t mean to murder or injure their victims, that their gun or guns weren’t intended to kill or wound, that somehow it was all a tragic mistake and if only Mr and Mrs Mullany had kept out of the way then the robbery would probably have gone on to be a resounding success.
In future, perhaps the BBC and others who regularly use this expression, ought to consider leaving the judgment regarding actions that it implies, to a proper court of law.
Tags: journalism