A "destructive device capabale of inflicting multiple casualties".

[Marr]

Have you ever heard of a bomb being referred to in that way?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/18/mlk.parade.device/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

That seems odd to me. Is that wording meant to minimize the incident, or make it seem less like terrorism, or was the object technically not a bomb?

[Webster Green]

1. I guess that means it wasn't a half-dozen road flares duct-taped together.

CNN is unwatchable anyway. They suck at everything they do.

[greyl]

2. Sounds like a bomb or WMD definition.

I don't see anything odd about it.

[TheWraith]

3. "Destructive device" is a term used sometimes to describe a bomb.

The phrase "destructive device" is used some federal laws governing explosives and explosive projectiles. In this case though, I'd guess it was mostly to convey a basic idea of what it was without getting into too many details.

[Major Hogwash]

4. It means it was designed to spread out in a wide pattern.

To inflict injuries to personnel, not to topple a building.

[Turbineguy]

5. No, but it sounds like

an excellent definition of the Republican Party.

[DCKit]

6. +1 With the MSM spewing heads running a close second. nt