3 ms·
This is admittedly very tangential only, but as a non-native speaker / not a US-American, I found this sentence from the NYT reporting[0] a bit confusing: > Jo
by ManuelKiessling 10mo ago
This is admittedly very tangential only, but as a non-native speaker / not a US-American, I found this sentence from the NYT reporting[0] a bit confusing:
> John said that the suspect’s clothing was inappropriate for the weather and that they had made eye contact.
Why is the report mentioning the eye contact? Is that culturally significant, as in, in the US you don’t normally do eye contact with strangers, and if a stranger does make eye contact, it’s suspicious?
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/19/us/brown-mit-shooting-investigation-reddit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/19/us/brown-mit-shooting-inv...
- wmeredith 10mo agoI think the eye contact bit is useful as a signal that the witness got a very good look at the suspect's face.
- nine_k 10mo agoI suppose that made eye contact = the face was clearly visible for a second or two, and thus recognized with more certainty.
- jdminhbg 10mo agoI think the eye contact in question was a prelude to the two of them kind of following each other around and a minor verbal altercation, so the later context shows that it was probably kind of suspicious eye contact, rather than a friendly "what's up?"
- zdragnar 10mo agoI agree with the other comments that this sentence is just poorly written. In cities people tend to not make eye contact while walking by each other, though in smaller towns it is more common to acknowledge each other in passing. In neither case would it be accurate to find eye contact suspicious. The sentence appears to be a summation of several things the person saw, convincing them poorly and creating the ambiguity.
- strathmeyer 10mo ago[dead]