We need another name for it, obviously
The writer asks:
It “went through the windshield”… by accident? By magic? Why this use of the passive voice?Sigh.
"Went" is not in the passive voice. "Go" isn't transitive and can't be made passive, in the first place, and if it could it would be "was gone". (I know, but "it was gone" isn't a passive construction - try adding "by him" to see what I mean - it's a participle used as an adjective.) "The bullet went through the windshield" is an active-voice sentence.
Clearly, what the writer is complaining about is that the reporter seems to be implying that the shooter had nothing to do with the bullet's going through the windshield; it's not his fault somebody ended up dead, the bullet did it all on its own. That implication may be reprehensible; agency may be being denied; culpability may be being covered up; but the passive voice isn't to blame.
Passive != "avoiding laying blame/taking responsibility". You can do that with the passive, of course, but (a) the passive can actually stress blame ("the victim was killed by the criminally careless shooter!") and (b) you can do it with the active, as well. As here.
Perhaps, if people are going to continue using the term "using the passive voice" to mean "avoiding assigning responsibility" we should take Mark Liberman's suggestion and rename it - maybe to "thematic" or "focussing" voice - and let people use "passive" to mean whatever it is they think they're talking about.
PS: If you think this might be just a one-off, I invite you to browse the Language Log archives to see just how often "passive" is used to mean "language I just don't like".