In Garden Grove, California the other day, a 65 year old woman with a gun chased 5 ar

way to go young lady....competent use of a firearm helps save her and her employees from possibly injury or death!

I haven't heard of Prison Planet before (the site posting the article)...looks interesting too.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/65-year-old-woman-with-a-gun-chases-off-5-armed-robbers.html

jhow1nm2 said:

way to go young lady....competent use of a firearm helps save her and her employees from possibly injury or death!

I haven't heard of Prison Planet before (the site posting the article)...looks interesting too.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/65-year-old-woman-with-a-gun-chases-off-5-armed-robbers.html

Click to expand...

You have heard of Alex Jones though, right?

Man the cop in this story pisses me off. "Just like the cops you have to be accountable for your rounds"..... the cops are NOT accountable for THEIR rounds....how many times do they shoot innocents when they're shooting at bad guys and walk away because "they had no choice"? (think the Empire State building shooting)

The citizen without a badge, lawfully defending themselves, should have the same protections as the citizens with badges when they shoot (even when it's not lawful). Think Seattle and Birk.

They ARE accountable for their rounds. You may not think that appropriate judgments are made about their shootings, but they are required to answer for every round they fire. When required to answer for something, that is the very definition of accountability.

eye95 said:

They ARE accountable for their rounds. You may not think that appropriate judgments are made about their shootings, but they are required to answer for every round they fire. When required to answer for something, that is the very definition of accountability.

Click to expand...

I disagree. While it may be technically correct, the reality is that the police in NY at the Empire State building shot a whole lot of innocent people and they did not face criminal or civil charges/penalties. Had that been a non badged citizen, they'd have been destroyed by civil litigation and likely in jail due to their negligence.

Same goes for Birk in Seattle. Had ANY non badged citizen done that shooting they would be facing a needle.

Merely saying "yep, that was my bullet, SORRY" is NOT accountability.

"Accountable" does not mean facing "civil or criminal penalties."

It means "answering for."

They are accountable.

eye95 said:

"Accountable" does not mean facing "civil or criminal penalties."

It means "answering for."

They are accountable.

Click to expand...

That's your "definition". My "definition" is answering for in the form of being penalized. But hey, I think we'd probably agree that LEO's and non badged citizens should be held to the same standard.

In Garden Grove, California the other day, a 65 year old woman with a gun chase

No. That is what the word very simply means. You will be asked to give an accounting. You will be asked to give an account of your actions. You will be held to account. It does not mean that any trouble will necessarily will come from the accounting that you are required to give.

Words have meaning.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I'm torn. The definition is just as Eye says, but the example seems to lean more towards what We is saying:

Definition of ACCOUNTABLE
1: subject to giving an account : answerable <held her accountable for the damage>

2: capable of being accounted for : explainable

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accountable

One thing with which I strongly disagree:

We-the-People said:

That's your "definition". My "definition" is answering for in the form of being penalized.

Click to expand...

There is no "your definition" or "my definition". It's a language. One individual does not change the meaning of a word - it takes many, many of them, misusing the word over a long period of time, to change the meaning.

I'll go along with this part though:

We-the-People said:

But hey, I think we'd probably agree that LEO's and non badged citizens should be held to the same standard.

Click to expand...

And my problem was that he was saying that the officers were not accountable, which is not true. They are being held to account. Every time. He may not like the outcome after the accounting. If he does not, he should address that particular case, not make the broad and false statement that officers are not held to account for shootings. They are.

P.S. I have often said that cops are citizens too. In most matters, they should be held to the same standard as all other citizens. I see two exceptions: They are (at least supposedly) highly-trained professionals. As such they should be held to a higher standard when it comes to those actions for which they have been trained, just like any other well-trained person would be. The second exception is that they have been given very specific authorities that they may exercise in very specific circumstances, authorities that other citizens don't have. The problem arises when an officer thinks he has an authority that he does not or when exercises an authority in a situation where he does not have it.

Nightmare said:

Do not fall prey to the definitist fallacies, what some have called the dictionary fallacies. Philosophical questions aren't resolved by repair to dictionaries, that merely removes the question to semiotics and semantics.

These fallacies are the requirement to define terms in advance; definition in terms of another property to be argued; and the use of persuasive definitions.

Click to expand...

That is just plain silly. In order for communication to occur, words must have agreed meanings. Dictionaries are the agreed arbiter of those meanings. When someone uses nuances of words to cloud an argument, that is one thing.

However, "accountable" has a very specific meaning. Lack of understanding of the most fundamental nature of that meaning was causing a blatantly false statement to be passed off as true by using an indefensibly incorrect definition of the word.

The word "accountable" has been defined in advance--and dictionaries agree on that definition.

eye95 said:

That is just plain silly. In order for communication to occur, words must have agreed meanings. Dictionaries are the agreed arbiter of those meanings. When someone uses nuances of words to cloud an argument, that is one thing.

However, "accountable" has a very specific meaning. Lack of understanding of the most fundamental nature of that meaning was causing a blatantly false statement to be passed off as true by using an indefensibly incorrect definition of the word.

The word "accountable" has been defined in advance--and dictionaries agree on that definition.

Click to expand...

I don't always see "eye to eye" with you, but I have to say I'm in total ageement with this. Couldn't have said it better.

I agree with We's point that sometimes police get away with things that they shouldn't - I just took issue with him redifining a word. To be fair, he did put it in quotes, but of course I couldn't let it go.

Want some real fun? Look up the word "Respect". As Indigo would say,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk