Except that wasn't what was implied either intentionally or unintentionally and you are smart enough to know that.
Here let me see if I can put it in a way you will understand why you weren't right. Tell me if you see the difference between these two phrases:
1) A woman died over night as she was struck by a drunk driver in Minneapolis.
2) A woman died over night when a driver hit a parked car at the protest. Alcohol may have been involved.
It isn't hard to see the difference.
The difference between your two sentences is that the second one provides more detail (slightly) which then provides more context, I suppose.
Sentence 1 only tells you that a woman was struck and killed by a drunk driver. We don't know if she was a pedestrian or in a car, or where in Minneapolis she may have been, or what she may have been doing.
Sentence 2 tells us that the driver hit a parked car at the protest, that a woman died, and that alcohol may have been a factor, but doesn't tell us whether she was a pedestrian, or maybe even in the car driven by the driver who may have been impaired.
Since we apparently want to talk about context in describing this incident, wouldn't it be better to write it this way: A woman attending a protest in the Uptown part of Minneapolis was killed Sunday night when a car she was sitting next to was struck by the driver of an SUV. The driver of the SUV was taken into custody. Alcohol may have been involved.
Those are the basic facts as have been reported, right? The driver's motives, what the driver may have been doing earlier, where he was going, etc..., are all unknown as of this point, at least as far has been reported.
So how did my sentence, reported widely in the media, cause so much offense?
