NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/seattle/general/4259

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 7.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!nwnexus!amc-gw!pilchuck!seahcx!phred!harryb
From: [e-mail] (harry barnett)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Displaying a weapon (was Bicycles are Vehicles)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:22:51 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Physio-Control
Lines: 158

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Dag Erik Lindberg) writes:
>Don't know where attributes for the ">>" quotes are, but I didn't
>remove them myself...
>
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (harry barnett) writes:
>>>It is called
>>>"brandishing".
>
>>NOT!
>
>>There are both Washington State statutes and local (King County,
>>Seattle, other political subdivisions) ordinances governing "Displaying
>>a Weapon" modelled upon (usually word for word) the State statute.  The
>>word "brandishing" or any word even remotely close to it is not part of
>>those statutes. If you believe this to be incorrect, please cite the
>>Washington State statute, or King County or City (your specific city
>>where you work as a Communication Specialist will do, or any other in
>>Washington) ordinance on "Brandishing".
>
>Nor does "murder" appear in any laws (it is technically called homicide
>or something similar), yet we all use "murder" to refer to that particular
>crime.

Pretty presumptuous.  Do, in fact, "WE all use..."?  How the hell would
you know?  No points for glittering generality, appeal to
consensus,...  (These are logical fallacies, BTW.) When I hear the word
"murder", I have a subjective understanding of what it is.  I don't
know that my subjective understanding agrees with your subjective
understanding, or with anybody else's, but, depending on the context,
the word may be suitable to convey sufficient meaning to someone else.

>Same with "brandish", defined by Webster as 'to shake or wave
>(as a weapon) menacingly'.  I believe the term pretty well describes
>the following RCW:

Legally, what you "believe" doesn't count for squat.  And "Webster"
(any edition) is FAR down on the list of legal authority, if it even
makes the list at all.  So a statement, which I assumed you intended to
come across as authoritative, like "It's called 'brandishing'", is not
authoritative, and should not be so phrased or stated.  Don't assert
your beliefs and opinions as fact.

Please note that "shake", "wave", "menac(e,ing), ALSO do not appear in
the limited portion of the RCW extract you posted. [Nor do they occur
in the rest of it, BTW.]  Has it occurred to you that there might be,
just MIGHT be, good reason for that?  Has it occurred to you that
maybe, just MAYBE, the people who drafted the statute probably
considered common definitions of "brandishing" and discarded them?

I stand by my original contention:  The word "brandishing" or any word
even remotely close to it is not part of those statutes, as proven by
your own excerpted portion, which follows.

>
>RCW 9.41.270 - Weapons Apparently Capable of Producing Bodily Harm,
>Carrying, Exhibiting, Display or Drawing Unlawful:
>
>(1) It shall be unlawful for anyone to carry, exhibit, display, or draw
>any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument,
>club or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a
>manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests
>an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety
>of other persons.
>

So interesting that you deleted subparagraphs (2), (3), and (4).  Could
you have done it because they might have had a tendency to impair your
position? ;-)  [My contention is true of those paragraphs, also, BTW.]

Last time I looked, this was called "intellectual dishonesty".

No law officer in the State of Washington who expects to get a perp
convicted of Displaying a Weapon will cite him for "Brandishing".  Your
original post (see above) put quotes (") around "brandishing", implying
that "Brandishing" was a legal term of art, or was at least derived
from external authority, rather than being your personal choice of
nomenclature.  In THIS state, it is NOT, and it is misleading to imply
and argue that it is.

>>>I also agree with your statements.  Carrying a deadly weapon is a
>>>tremendous responsibility,
>
>>In spirit, I agree.  However, "tremendous" is subjective, so we may not
>>completely agree.
>
>I think handling *any* deadly chemicals, machinery, or implements is

Again, what "you think" or "believe" doesn't mean squat, objectively.
The operative words here, in relation to "subjective" is "I [as in *I*]
think".

>a "tremendous" responsibility, be it a knife, gun, or an automobile.
>The fact that people tend to get casual about these deadly tools when
>they deal with them on a daily basis does not lessen the "tremendous"
>nature of the responsibility.  Unfortunately, sometimes "casual"
>becomes "careless" and somebody dies.  Sounds pretty "tremendous" to
>me.  And hardly subjective, since your commitment to the responsibility
>has a direct bearing on my "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".
>

It sure as hell IS subjective.  In your example, suppose the person who
dies has a $10,000 life insurance policy.  Would the payment of $10,000
by a $10 billion a year insurance company be "tremendous"?  Probably
not.  You see the death of someone as "tremendous".  The people who run
the insurance company do not.  Again, "tremendous" is in the eye of the
beholder, therefore, subjective.

A "tremendous" pimple to a teenager is likely to be hardly noticed by
an adult.  Try comparing "subjective" to "objective" to understand the
difference.  YOUR understanding of what is "tremendous" almost
certainly differs from MY understanding of what is "tremendous";
therefore the term is subjective.

A reasonable, disinterested third party, informed of the facts, could
be reasonably expected to be objective.  Note the pronoun "MY" as in MY
life, MY liberty, MY pursuit of happiness.  Note the "Sounds ... to
me".  By your own remarks you demonstrate that it IS subjective, not
objective.

Also note that, in the interest of brevity, I am using the terms
"reasonable", and "disinterested" in their subjective sense, that is,
in the sense in which I understand them, in the hope that our common
understanding as to their meanings are similar enough to result in
agreement.

People who draft well-written statutes strive to state things
objectively.  They must, because the judge will throw it out (sometimes
:-) as vague and ambiguous if it is not, i.e., if it is written
subjectively.  I can just see out now, the prosecutor arguing, "Your
Honor, the defendant is charged with violating his TREMENDOUS
responsibility. [blah blah blah]".

It really makes little difference to me that we differ in opinion.
When you broadcast opinion masquerading as fact to others, expect to
get called on it.  If not by me, then by somebody, sometime,
somewhere.  If you had made it clear that you were expressing opinion,
rather than implying that what you were saying was fact, I wouldn't
even have responded to your original post at all.

>--
>del AKA Erik Lindberg                             uunet!pilchuck!fnx!del
>                          Who is John Galt?

Anybody who has the gall to use this phrase as a .signature should
not be confused about the difference between "subjective" and
"objective", IMHO.  Now THIS is chutzpah!!!

harryb@phred

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brittanius (shocked):  Caesar, this is not proper.
Theodotus (outraged):  How?
Caesar (recovering his self possession):  Pardon him, Theodotus:  He is
a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and islands are
the laws of nature.

        --Caesar and Cleopatra, Act II, George Bernard Shaw
-----------------------------------------------------------------------