Well it finally happened

[deepdiver]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

SNIP Bastardization of the language is causing much confusement and heartachement amongst those wishing for clearly defined meaningment. Words are created from the ashes of torched grammar to fulfill the void left by lack knowledge/education.

Gotta admire creative postments.

It warmed the cockles of my intellectual self.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

SNIP Bastardization of the language is causing much confusement and heartachement amongst those wishing for clearly defined meaningment. Words are created from the ashes of torched grammar to fulfill the void left by lack knowledge/education.

Gotta admire creative postments.

It warmed the cockles of my intellectual self.

Mine, tooment.

But, we do have to keep it in perspective.Lexicographers (the peoplewhostudy words andwrite thedictionaries) will tell you--in the front or back of the dictionary--that they do not make the definitions or the words. They only report, by way of the dictionary, how the rest of the world is usingthe words and the meaning the rest of the world is giving to words.

People assign new meanings to words all the time. And invent new ones all the time. If that did not happen, we would all sound like one of William Shakespeare's characters.

There is a certain liberty-mindedment to recognizing that a person whose vocabularylacks a certain word or rule of grammar still deserves to communicate and has a right to try to be understood.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Well, dang it all to heck.

I looked it up. One of thedefinitions for the suffix "-ment"* fits the word "detainment." Meaning "detainment" is a real word formed according to the rules of the game.

But its still not a word we use in VA jurisprudence! So, don't nobody go getting any ideas.

*turning a verb into a noun that showsa resulting state, as in turning the verb "detain" into a noun showing the state or condition: detainment.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Citizen wrote:
Bastardization of the language is causing much confusement and heartachement amongst those wishing for clearly defined meaningment. Words are created from the ashes of torched grammar to fulfill the void left by lack knowledge/education.

Our "living" language is destroying the old rules of diction and syntax. I have no doubt but that this will eventually compound the difficulty in interpreting our laws even further than it has to date.

Yata hey

Why do fat girls wear Spandex
http://news.oldva.org/?p=1449

Dot's funny - Did the Professor say that all in one breath?

BTW - Bowling Alley paste wax is higher in carnauba, I think.

Yata hey

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Well, dang it all to heck.

I looked it up. One of thedefinitions for the suffix "-ment"* fits the word "detainment." Meaning "detainment" is a real word formed according to the rules of the game.

But its still not a word we use in VA jurisprudence! So, don't nobody go getting any ideas.

*turning a verb into a noun that showsa resulting state, as in turning the verb "detain" into a noun showing the state or condition: detainment.

Transitive verbs (action) may have their grammatical classification changed to that of a noun by adding certain suffixes.

1) Adding -ing alters a verb to being a gerund - a noun derived from a verb and having all case forms except the nominative.

2) Adding -ee, -or, -er, -ment to the verb = a noun derived from a verb and having all case forms. There may be other suffixes that do not come to mind. There is no rule other than common usage that applies here.

So the language lives, breathes and broadens. That is enrichment or enriching - your choice.

Yata hey

 

[bmartinxd45]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Citizen wrote:

VApatriot wrote:

SNIP Alright, I realizethat I did not use the exact same phrasing that is used in case law, and this can lead to confusion of the situation, but is there a legal difference between "detention" and "detainment?" From a ordinary language perspective, it seem that both are the result of being "detained." What makes a situation in which an individual is being "detained" either a "detainment" or "detention?" Does something called "detainment" even exist in legal language?

Sorry for all of the questions and misunderstanding of the situation. I have not yet managed to take the time to read and fully understand the finer points of Terry andother similar cases.

The words are functionally identical near as I can tell. I've seen the word "detainment" in a court opinion from a western state (California? Washington?) in the context of a Terry Stop.

We've been using the word "detention" in VA for ages, and this new word "detainment" comes along recently. I'm not even sure it is a real word constructed according the usual rules of grammar.

I like the idea of avoiding confusion. Your confusion expressed above is exactly the thing I'm trying to avoid.

Bastardization of the language is causing much confusement and heartachement amongst those wishing for clearly defined meaningment. Words are created from the ashes of torched grammar to fulfill the void left by lack knowledge/education.

Our "living" language is destroying the old rules of diction and syntax. I have no doubt but that this will eventually compound the difficulty in interpreting our laws even further than it has to date.

Yata hey

I'm crying!!!!!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[peter nap]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Well, dang it all to heck.

I looked it up. One of thedefinitions for the suffix "-ment"* fits the word "detainment." Meaning "detainment" is a real word formed according to the rules of the game.

But its still not a word we use in VA jurisprudence! So, don't nobody go getting any ideas.

*turning a verb into a noun that showsa resulting state, as in turning the verb "detain" into a noun showing the state or condition: detainment.

Transitive verbs (action) may have their grammatical classification changed to that of a noun by adding certain suffixes.

1) Adding -ing alters a verb to being a gerund - a noun derived from a verb and having all case forms except the nominative.

2) Adding -ee, -or, -er, -ment to the verb = a noun derived from a verb and having all case forms. There may be other suffixes that do not come to mind. There is no rule other than common usage that applies here.

So the language lives, breathes and broadens. That is enrichment or enriching - your choice.

Yata hey

I understand the problem completely and being form the mountains I can see the difficulty understanding the meaning of sentences made by flatlanders who have an accent and the run on sentences they write especially when they can't pronounce the letter R as in rivah.

It'd be a lot simpler if English was wrote in a common format so it was understandable by all. Take the concealed weapon statute:

Hid from common observation.

Why not just say hid.

Well your honor, he had it "Hid". Ain't that easier.

Lots of other improvements that can be made like the spelling of words to match proper pronunciation.

Take the word "Tired". How's someone supposed to know what that means. Why not just spell it "Tared", or "Fired" should be spelled Fared" or "Other One" could certainly be shortened to "Earn".

We waste a lot of energy putting in extra words.
Take this definition:
A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern that occurs in an individual and is thought to cause distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture. The recognition and understanding of mental health conditions has changed over time and across cultures, and there are still variations in the definition, assessment, and classification of mental disorders, although standard guideline criteria are widely accepted.

Ain't it easier just to say "That boy ain't right"?

We've certainly fallen from grace as far as learning our kids good grammer!:X

 

[nuc65]

imported post

t33j wrote:

How is it I can cooperate and then be detained? Why would I not be able to leave at any time?

You pretty much tacitly gave up your rights by continuing to talk and cooperate. If upon asking if you are being detained, and receiving a negative reply then you walk away. If you are not being detained they cannot stop you. By telling you that you are not being detained but also telling you to sit and you comply then you are waiving your rights, legally so. At least in court that is what it would probably come out like. Because you repeatedly asked, were affirmed in the negative, but stayed and complied it would appear you voluntarily waived your rights.

 

[t33j]

imported post

nuc65 wrote:

t33j wrote:

How is it I can cooperate and then be detained? Why would I not be able to leave at any time?

You pretty much tacitly gave up your rights by continuing to talk and cooperate.  If upon asking if you are being detained, and receiving a negative reply then you walk away.  If you are not being detained they cannot stop you.  By telling you that you are not being detained but also telling you to sit and you comply then you are waiving your rights, legally so.  At least in court that is what it would probably come out like.  Because you repeatedly asked, were affirmed in the negative, but stayed and complied it would appear you voluntarily waived your rights.

As peter_nap brought up, the first officer had 2 of my IDs and that is what kept me there.

 

[25sierraman]

imported post

So will you be filing that complaint? I actually know a few of the officers there at ODU. I dated one of their nieces . I'm really interested to see how this turns out for you. First post on this forum by the way.

 

[t33j]

imported post

25sierraman wrote:

So will you be filing that complaint? I actually know a few of the officers there at ODU. I dated one of their nieces . I'm really interested to see how this turns out for you.  First post on this forum by the way.

Indeed.

Welcome to the forum! Check out the NOVA OC dinners and join the VCDL.

 

[25sierraman]

imported post

Already a member of the VCDL, NRA and VFW. Im looking forward to the next dinner so i can get to know some more people in the area. I'll have to keep an eye out for the next day that is scheduled.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

25sierraman wrote:

Already a member of the VCDL, NRA and VFW. Im looking forward to the next dinner so i can get to know some more people in the area. I'll have to keep an eye out for the next day that is scheduled.

Arlington - April 24th
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/41408.html

Yata hey

 

[nuc65]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Transitive verbs (action) may have their grammatical classification changed to that of a noun by adding certain suffixes.

1) Adding -ing alters a verb to being a gerund - a noun derived from a verb and having all case forms except the nominative.

2) Adding -ee, -or, -er, -ment to the verb = a noun derived from a verb and having all case forms. There may be other suffixes that do not come to mind. There is no rule other than common usage that applies here.

So the language lives, breathes and broadens. That is enrichment or enriching - your choice.

Yata hey

I am an enriched enrichee of the enricher. Thanks for the enrichment.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

nuc65 wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Transitive verbs (action) may have their grammatical classification changed to that of a noun by adding certain suffixes.

1) Adding -ing alters a verb to being a gerund - a noun derived from a verb and having all case forms except the nominative.

2) Adding -ee, -or, -er, -ment to the verb = a noun derived from a verb and having all case forms. There may be other suffixes that do not come to mind. There is no rule other than common usage that applies here.

So the language lives, breathes and broadens. That is enrichment or enriching - your choice.

Yata hey

I am an enriched enrichee of the enricher. Thanks for the enrichment.

:lol:

Yata hey

 

[t33j]

imported post

Dear ...,

An investigation has been conducted by the Office of Professional Standards into your complaint of misconduct by a member of the Old Dominion University Police Department. There is insufficient evidence to support an allegation of misconduct by any member of this Department.

When a dignitary visits our campus, extra precautions are taken to assure their safety as well as the safety of our citizens. The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia was attending a dinner in the Alumni Center.

This incident did gives us an opportunity to reiterate to our staff that a citizen carrying a holstered handgun does not constitute a violation of the law.

Thank you for taking the time to bring this issue to my attention.

Rudolph L. Burwell
Chief of Police

 

[fully_armed_biker]

imported post

...So, in other words, "We investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong...." Wow....there's a shocker :banghead:!!!

 

[Uber_Olafsun]

imported post

t33j wrote:

Dear ...,

An investigation has been conducted by the Office of Professional Standards into your complaint of misconduct by a member of the Old Dominion University Police Department. There is insufficient evidence to support an allegation of misconduct by any member of this Department.

When a dignitary visits our campus, extra precautions are taken to assure their safety as well as the safety of our citizens. The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia was attending a dinner in the Alumni Center.

This incident did gives us an opportunity to reiterate to our staff that a citizen carrying a holstered handgun does not constitute a violation of the law.

Thank you for taking the time to bring this issue to my attention.

Rudolph L. Burwell
Chief of Police

Some VIP shows up and screw your rights for their comfort.

 

[Marco]

imported post

Uber_Olafsun wrote:

Some VIP shows up and screw your rights for their comfort.

I seriously doubt Ken had an issue.
Considering many of ushave visitedKen's office while openly armed and were welcomed and he has attended a few VCDL gathers were almost everyone is armed.

 

[t33j]

imported post

Yeah... here's an excerpt from my letter:

On my way to my car I was observed to be carrying a holstered firearm on public property by Detective ***** who was inside Innovation Research Park 2 on special detail for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. I can only assume Detective ***** is not familiar the Attorney General's stance on those who would exercise a right enumerated both by Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Observing someone with a properly holstered firearm about the Attorney General would not be an uncommon sight. I regret that I was unaware of his presence, otherwise I might have gone inside to say hello but I digress.