It came alive

[GoodTaste]

The headline uses past tense - does "came" mean that the events happened in the past and no more exists presently? Is it wrong to use simple present "come"?

The problem is that it refers to people's fears which do exist presently - So it seems to be reasonable to use simple tense: 'People's worst fears' come alive in Kenosha, which would be more shocking and alarming as it is telling an unpleasant fact. I am not sure.

Can we use "come" in the headline?

===================
'People's worst fears' came alive in Kenosha
Protests have been volatile. Add guns and heightened emotions and it's "a recipe for disaster" with a high risk to life, experts say
From police shooting Jacob Blake to Kenosha deaths: A visual timeline

Source: USAToday (on the homepage at this moment)
The complete report is here with a slightly different headline:

'People's worst fears' came alive in Kenosha: Guns, militia inject chilling dimension into protests

 

[tedmc]

I think the simple past tense was used to refer to the past incidents of the Jacon Blake shooting and deaths in Kenosha where the worst that the people feared happened (as manifested in the incidents). That does not mean the fear is no longer present.

 

[GoesStation]

Can we use "come" in the headline?

===================
'People's worst fears' came alive in Kenosha

It's possible in headline English, but the simple past was a good choice here. People had a set of fears before the atrocities occurred. Then several of the worst of them came to pass.

I'm too tired to try to articulate why. Perhaps another native speaker will help out.

 

[GoodTaste]

Is simple present wrong there?

 

[GoesStation]

Is the simple present wrong there?

It's possible.

 

[GoodTaste]

It's possible.

Why？