Man Arrested For Gun In Bar

[jmelvin]

You're silly TFred. You want to claim that my statements don't agree with the dictionary definition of the word "onto", when they most certainly do. I showed the definition of "onto" to be defined as a "to a position on" when used as a preposition and then replaced the word with the definition to show my point. Repeater then posted a description of how "onto" should be used, which then goes on to make the unverified assumptions that I said you'd have to make to draw the conclusion you drew. However the instruction provided by Repeater's post regarding the use of "onto" is not consistent with the definition of "onto" being simply "to a place on". For the instruction to make any sense then the definition must be changed to "to a place on from another place" and not simply "to a place on". I have yet to find the more restrictive definition listed though.

I think I shall try to walk around my home to a place on the floor and then to a place on the floor (repeat for pacing effect) all the while not stepping onto the floor and then again not stepping onto the floor while I ponder all of this.

 

[TFred]

You're silly TFred. You want to claim that my statements don't agree with the dictionary definition of the word "onto", when they most certainly do. I showed the definition of "onto" to be defined as a "to a position on" when used as a preposition and then replaced the word with the definition to show my point. Repeater then posted a description of how "onto" should be used, which then goes on to make the unverified assumptions that I said you'd have to make to draw the conclusion you drew. However the instruction provided by Repeater's post regarding the use of "onto" is not consistent with the definition of "onto" being simply "to a place on". For the instruction to make any sense then the definition must be changed to "to a place on from another place" and not simply "to a place on". I have yet to find the more restrictive definition listed though.

I think I shall try to walk around my home to a place on the floor and then to a place on the floor (repeat for pacing effect) all the while not stepping onto the floor and then again not stepping onto the floor while I ponder all of this.

::sigh::

Looks like our next English lesson is going to have to be on "agree to disagree..."

Kinda feel like: :banghead:

But really more like: :lol:

TFred

 

[jmelvin]

You feel the same as I do, but I'm stuck using the definitions provided by the Merriam Webster Dictionary and Dictionary.com (American Heritage Dictionary). Let me know when you publish your own dictionary TFred and I'll be happy to use that as a citation for reference.

 

[Red Dawg]

My understanding is that they had to put in ONTO premises, because a number of establishements have outside patios. And also have at times throughout the year, gatherings with special ABC permits, for large crowds. Think Superbowl party, Bike Classic in VB...Where the establishment increases it's capacity to hold extra people in a roped/fenced area.

 

[nuc65]

My understanding of the English language is no. To step "on" implies that you were "off". You can't turn a light "on" that is already "on". "On" is a boolean value. You can't be more "on" than "on".

If you really don't get that, then English must not be your primary language. If you do but just don't want to admit it, then you are trying to stretch the law to mean what you want it to mean, and not what it does mean.

In either case, as invited before, please feel free to be the first test case, I'm sure we will all follow along with much interest.

TFred

You probably believe that a double negative applies to the English language?

 

[epilogue]

You probably believe that a double negative applies to the English language?

What don't do you won't not never speak of?

 

[TFred]

You probably believe that a double negative applies to the English language?

Ha ha, well I can't say that I've ever seen a more thinly disguised invitation to a trap... but just for kicks, I'll take a conservative stab at it and reply with, "Sure, don't you?"



TFred

 

[nuc65]

Ha ha, well I can't say that I've ever seen a more thinly disguised invitation to a trap... but just for kicks, I'll take a conservative stab at it and reply with, "Sure, don't you?"



TFred

Tautological...

English is not math, so no I do not. I have had a number of English professors who have discussed this and all have said that "English is not math." Multiple negatives in an English sentence do not negate and become positive at every even use, they merely seek to enforce the negative construction of the author.

On, on to, and onto the premises may give you the impression of being able to openly display your firearm upon entry, but if your actions are called into question what position do you think the police will take? Will they even listen to your strict construction of the grammatical structure of the legal sentence? I believe this answer will be no. If they do not, will the judge? How much time and money might you end up investing in justifying said action? Will you be able to have a CHP after a firearms conviction under this section?

 

[TFred]

I have had a number of English professors who have discussed this and all have said that "English is not math." Multiple negatives in an English sentence do not negate and become positive at every even use, they merely seek to enforce the negative construction of the author.

Classic example of why you should not let non-math/science professors engage in logical thinking.

(Need another example?)

TFred

 

[PT111]

English is not math, so no I do not. I have had a number of English professors who have discussed this and all have said that "English is not math." Multiple negatives in an English sentence do not negate and become positive at every even use, they merely seek to enforce the negative construction of the author.

Exactly why the American version of the English language is getting so hard to understand and so easy for the general public to be taken advantage of. Terms like "Three times faster", "A fraction of the cost", "Twenty percent less" or "One-Hundred times as thin" all have no actual meaning other than advertising phrases meant to fool the public are in the common language and accepted as valid comparisions. Probably my favorite pet peeve is when someone writes "Me and my brother went....". Now you say that the double negative is accepted and the moderstyle of writing. All I have to say about the is "I could care less". :banghead:

 

[TFred]

Exactly why the American version of the English language is getting so hard to understand and so easy for the general public to be taken advantage of. Terms like "Three times faster", "A fraction of the cost", "Twenty percent less" or "One-Hundred times as thin" all have no actual meaning other than advertising phrases meant to fool the public are in the common language and accepted as valid comparisions. Probably my favorite pet peeve is when someone writes "Me and my brother went....". Now you say that the double negative is accepted and the moderstyle of writing. All I have to say about the is "I could care less". :banghead:

Double negatives are a perfectly logical way to express meaningful thought. The correct form of your pun, "I couldn't care less", is quite clear in its intended meaning, namely that it is not possible for one to care any less about something than they do, or to restate, that they care absolutely not at all.

"I don't drink decaf," is another, certainly fairly common use. There are obviously countless legitimate uses for double negatives.

I will agree we don't need more "slang" usage, such as "I don't want no pickles on my sandwich," which would technically mean that you do want pickles, but in virtually all actual usage would probably mean (perhaps emphatically) to leave the pickles off.

TFred

 

[TFred]

This OCDO not English 101, but you might learn to care about the proper usage of words should you ever be charged with a crime and the wording of the statute you are accused of violating is twisted to make you a criminal. Hyperbole in marketing is one thing, but the law is as exacting as math, or should be.

And this is exactly why I think my initial interest that brought me here for one particular issue ended up keeping me here for good. Law is sort of like math, but with rules that sometimes bend for no valid reason. That part is frustrating, but fascinating as well.

And your point should be very well taken... one's level of competence with the English language could easily spell the difference between "have a nice day" and "when do I get out on parole?"

TFred

 

[Repeater]

Real World example alarmed Dave Albo

This OCDO not English 101, but you might learn to care about the proper usage of words should you ever be charged with a crime and the wording of the statute you are accused of violating is twisted to make you a criminal. Hyperbole in marketing is one thing, but the law is as exacting as math, or should be.

Creating, by intent or by accident, ambiguity in penal statute can in fact have real world consequences. That is why this discussion is so important.

Perhaps it would be instructive for some of you to learn from this incident that occurred last year, the reaction it caused, and the response from the General Assembly this year.

What does this statute -- as currently written -- mean to you wordsmiths here?

Well, a Virginian -- John G. Mendez, 45, of Woodbridge --was arrested for reckless driving. He went to court, his defense attorney attacked the statute -- and won!

As the WaPo first reported:

Dropped 'at' in Va. law yields acquittal in school bus case

"A person is guilty of reckless driving who fails to stop, when approaching from any direction, any school bus which is stopped on any highway, private road or school driveway for the purpose of taking on or discharging children."

Yes, drivers must stop a school bus which is, er, stopped.

Wait. Is something missing there?

Indeed. The preposition "at" was deleted in 1970 when the law was amended, the statute's history shows.

Uh oh. .....

Told by a reporter of Mendez's acquittal, Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax) said: "That's not good. That's a very serious charge. That needs to be fixed."

The article on this case continues with this:

Reckless driving is not just a traffic violation - it's a criminal misdemeanor punishable by jail time and stiff fines.

Mendez probably wasn't looking at any jail time. Still, he had received the ticket in the middle of a ridiculously bad morning - his tools were stolen and he was laid off his job before he passed the bus - and was thrilled by the judge's ruling, coming after argument from his attorney, Eric E. Clingan.

"Eric did his homework," Mendez said. "He did a lot of work and investigation into the statutes. . . . This is the greatest moment ever."

The Wall Street Journal picked up on this, and wrote this:

Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Katie Pavluchuk argued that the law clearly did not intend to require “having to stop the school bus. It’s talking about this other vehicle coming towards the school bus. . . . The obvious intent of the statute is clear.”

But Clingan then pointed to Virginia Supreme Court case, which says that: “Courts are not permitted to add language to a statute nor are they ‘permitted to accomplish the same result by judicial interpretation.’ ”

Mused Williams from the bench: “I don’t know if there’s some latitude” in divining the law’s intent. “There probably isn’t, because it’s a criminal statute.” And read literally, the judge said, he had to acquit Mendez.

Well, that's correct. If the statute is in error, only the legislature can fix it.

Which it did:

HB 2043 Reckless driving; failing to stop at a school bus.

SB 769 Reckless driving; failing to stop at a school bus.

Perhaps now the lesson is clear.

 

[t33j]

I also recall from driving school that the private roads part was not formerly in the statue. Someone was charged but not convicted because the school bus was on a private road and not a public one.

 

[peter nap]

 

[Fenris]

If you're on a boat and you take a step to a place that is also on the boat are you not stepping onto the boat? If you're not stepping onto the boat (although a new portion of the boat) are you then stepping onto something different altogether that is not the boat? What is the nature of this new thing that you are stepping onto if it is not boat (or a part of the boat)?

"Onto" connotes transition. "On" may or may not have transition as part of it. Probably has something to do with the second part of "onto" i.e. the two letters "to". The answer to your question, "What is the nature of this new thing that you are stepping onto if it is not boat (or a part of the boat)?" is that when I first boarded the boat, I stepped "onto" the boat, subsequently I am stepping "on" the boat.

If I walk "to" my wife and kiss her, I transitioned from a location away from her, "to" a position beside her. If she permits, I will remain and continue kissing. By your logic, I am continuing to walk "to" her else "to" whom am I walking? My answer is that I am not walking "to" anyone. I am not walking. I am kissing.

To take another wife example, if I have been gardening outside, and my boots are muddy, if I walk "onto" the carpet, my wife will yell at me. If I continue to walk "on" the carpet, my wife will continue to yell at me. I am however not walking "onto" anything. The walking "onto" has passed. We are now in the walking "on" phase. If I were so foolish as to then walk "onto" the expensive Persian rug, she would kill me, probably with a knife since she doesn't like guns. I would then fall "onto" the rug (transitioning) and remain "on" the rug (no transition.) I would then proceed to bleed either "on" or "onto" the Persian rug. You can arguably continue to use the transitional "onto" because my blood is transitioning from a location inside my body "onto" the floor. By the way I would find this all very personally distressing. I prefer that shoes be taken off when coming inside and certainly prior to walking "onto" either carpet or rugs. I further prefer to keep all of my blood inside my body. Not to mention the question of who will raise the children now.

Is the horse dead yet? I'm tired of continuing to beat "onto" it.

 

[papa bear]

y'all are making my head hurt!! need an exploding head smiley . could he have been arrested because he was acting up and the reporter just wanted to make it look like he was arrested for :shocker: the gun?

 

[Repeater]

"Onto" connotes transition.

Correct, a transition from off-premises to on-premises.

Is the horse dead yet? I'm tired of continuing to beat "onto" it.

Then perhaps we could delegate the beating onto the current Attorney General who could advise us with an opinion.

 

[Fenris]

Then perhaps we could delegate the beating onto the current Attorney General who could advise us with an opinion.

Considering that there is a very real political that Ken pays when these opinions are issued, I would suggest not spending our influence foolishly on minor issues like the difference between "on" and "onto". The church question was important. This, not so much.

 

[stuckinchico]

Correct, a transition from off-premises to on-premises.



Then perhaps we could delegate the beating onto the current Attorney General who could advise us with an opinion.

Or continue to beat upon our representatives that the people dont want them conferring upon us their stupid lack of control laws