Everyone agrees that a man was shot in in Philadelphia on Monday following an argument. What they can't agree about is why: Was he shot for eating his friend's cake, or for eating his friend's French fries?
The facts are as follows: At around quarter to three in the morning, two men in a parked car got into an argument, apparently over food. They both got out of the car, at which one one man shot the other in the chest. The victim was rushed to the hospital, where he remains in critical condition; the suspected shooter escaped and remains at large. An "investigator" quoted in the Philadelphia Daily News article tells the story:
"They weren't supposed to be sharing" he said. "One was eating the other's food, they got into an argument and 'Bang! Bang!'"
But, of course, questions remain. Such as, for example, "Why would you shoot someone over food?" and "What does it say about the sad, pathetic species of hominid we all unfortunately belong to that we have demonstrated such an eagerness to kill over such trivial affronts?" And also, obviously, "what food were they fighting over?" CBS Philly says it was French fries:
The two men were in a parked car near the intersection of 2nd and Callowhill Streets, eating fast food when an argument broke out over french fries, according to police....
No word on what started the argument over the fries.
But the Philadelphia Daily News directly contradicts that account:
Two friends were in a car on 2nd Street near Callowhill around 2:40 a.m., when the passenger in the vehicle began eating cake the driver had in his car, according to police...
[An] investigator denied a conflicting report that french fries were at the center of the argument. While food was the catalyst, he said, it was over baked goods, not fried.
Who to believe? Well, probably, the Daily News, since they talked to someone willing to be quoted, and put their story out later than the fries story. And also! Cake is probably more valuable than fries, in terms of how willing a person might be to shoot his friend for it.