(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
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson