Well if he woke up on a random day and tweeted about it, it’d be totally fine. SF is an unsafe place and we should talk about it.

But he started his train of posts in relation to this specific incident. He tapped emotions by saying things like “Bob was someone’s father” and the city was complacent etc. So when it turns out that the city was doing something and it wasn’t a crime committed by a homeless person, I feel the responsible/neutral thing would have been to inform his followers about the truth.

He can still tweet about SF crime rates. But don’t you think someone who hasn’t been following the news but has been following only his tweets will be left with an incorrect impression of the city and the incident?