A journalist and advocate who rose from homelessness and addiction to serve as a spokesperson for Philadelphia’s most vulnerable was shot and killed at his home early Monday, police said.
Josh Kruger, 39, was shot seven times at about 1:30 a.m. and collapsed in the street after seeking help, police said. He was pronounced dead at a hospital a short time later. Police believe the door to his Point Breeze home was unlocked or the shooter knew how to get in, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported. No arrests have been made and no weapons have been recovered, they said.
Authorities haven’t spoken publicly about the circumstances surrounding the killing.
In what world would scenario 1 even be considered an option. Be real.
It’s an option because a majority of victims know their killers personally. Now, that may also mean it’s scenario 2 or a family member or someone they had a bad business deal with or someone random. And I do take issue with the assumption that those two scenarios are the most likely. But it’s not out of the question.
The real world. Are you serious?
Have you ever read a news story or just headlines on social media?
Yep, some weeks ago a crazy white guy shot dead an old woman for hanging the rainbow flag outside her store.
Ok. Did you bother to read the article at all before contributing such a stupid comment? No, you did not.
Do better.
Gotta love when someone doesn’t have more arguments: “dId yOu ReAd tHe ArTiClE?”
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
While I’d like to believe there’s some grand conspiracy to silence this guy, I actually think it’s more likely this was done by someone he knew or was working with.
I could easily see some angry, deranged homeless person killing a journalist just because he “didn’t like him.”
…do you pay attention to the news at all? The real world is soaked in domestic violence over ideological, especially in the west.
deleted by creator
Everyone knows when a journalist dies, we should look first at the unhoused population.
Unhoused…that’s a fucking stupid term.
People downvoting you cause they don’t like that it’s truly stupid that we have decided to whitewash homelessness with a cute word that doesn’t make you feel as bad.
They are homeless, without a home, without shelter, those that have been pushed from the basic need of private shelter.
If they want to call it unhoused sure, but they are indeed shelterless.
Involuntary outdoor enthusiasts.
Well, homeless may refer to people who don’t legally possess shelter, while unsheltered or unhoused refers to people who don’t reside in any shelter. I think it is a useful distinction because you do encounter people who consider couch-surfing to be homelessness, even though the physical circumstances are quite different from living on the street.
I have been homeless 3 times in varying ways and for one of them got a hotel once every few days to sleep and shower. I really wasn’t better off for it.
We are homeless because we have no space to be safe and feel protected. We are without a home. And there will never be a perfect word that covers everyone and doesn’t quite cover the nuance. But you paint with a broad brush and fill in the nuance after.
Well I’m the one who used it and I’ve been homeless twice, so I’m glad that falls under acceptable use for you.
It’s a survey term that gets better responses, not a whitewashing or emotionally insulated term.
All ive seen on why I should use unhoused is because conservatives have tried to weaponize the word homeless into a pejorative term to blame the victim. Which means we are picking a new term to make people feel better about the issue and the consensus still seems to be homeless people say homeless.
I would argue people would think being in a shelter makes you stop being unhoused while you are still very much homeless. Homeless reminds you the issue is that we can not get homes, just shelter. But maybe it makes people who feel the same while being better off feel bad idk.
It’s like a return to hoovervilles. Sure there is shelter and it’s quasi housing but I doubt anyone in them at the time would call it a home. It’s not the word that is the problem but how people feel about the issue. A word change won’t change that entirely just confuse the dumber people for a minute while they catch up.
Sorry you don’t like it.
I have been homeless twice, but didn’t really feel it because I was able to get a hotel room and/or able to sleep at my workplace after work. I was working ~80 hours/week, so I was pretty insulated from feeling it, but it took years to realize that I was homeless (I don’t know, I grew up middle class and assumed it couldn’t be me?).
It wasn’t until someone used the term unhoused, that I mentioned how my old boss used to let me and my ex sleep in the bar as long as we were gone by 11, then I realized that it had been me twice.
Homeless technically refers to anyone without a home, but a lot of people who believe they are temporarily between homes would not identify as homeless (not even just out of classism, but not wanting to take resources from people who need them more, etc.). Unhoused tends to get a more complete response
No I for sure understand that unhoused can be used but it has a certain criteria to be used. but people are using a softer term for a serious issue and I hate it when it’s used to gloss over the harsher issue of the homeless like all they are struggling with is not having a home when it’s much more. Homeless and Unhoused are two very different terms.