Re: the headline

No they didn’t.

“In terms of anticipating future behavior, that’s a speculation,” the chief said. “That’s just what we have to anticipate. It would be really naive of us or unjust for us to say that ‘hey, it’s all taken care of,’ and we don’t have him in custody.”

They are planning for future attacks because it would absolutely stupid and a failure of their duties to not, but nowhere in that article are they quoted as saying they think he will.

That might not seem like an actual distinction, but to claim they think he will act again implies they have some material insight and can discourage voters even further from attempting to use drop boxes; conversely, to claim they are anticipating future attacks does not imply any material insight and if anticipation is followed with increased security can help to assuage voters’ fears.

Blood for the blood god?