(June 15, 2020 at 10:06 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:(June 15, 2020 at 8:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If that’s the standard (and it’s not a bad one) then everything can be considered lethal. Maybe we should dump the terms ‘non-lethal’ and ‘less than lethal’ (which I’m still convinced mean the same thing) and replace them with some sort of lethality scale. Which may have its own problems.Nit picking -
None of this changes the argument, of course. It just language nit-picking on my part.
Boru
Welcome to the wonderful world defined by lawyers.....
(June 15, 2020 at 8:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If that’s the standard (and it’s not a bad one) then everything can be considered lethal. Maybe we should dump the terms ‘non-lethal’ and ‘less than lethal’ (which I’m still convinced mean the same thing) and replace them with some sort of lethality scale. Which may have its own problems.Nit picking -
None of this changes the argument, of course. It just language nit-picking on my part.
Boru
Welcome to the wonderful world defined by lawyers.....
I notice you haven't explained the difference between 'less than lethal' and 'non-lethal'. Is that because there isn't one?
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax