J'accuse

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Thu Oct 30, 2003 6:01 pm

The incident triggered memories of a far more lethal incident on July 24, 1998, when a man with a history of mental illness rushed into the Capitol and killed two security guards. The accused shooter, Russell E. Weston Jr., is awaiting trial. (AP on NYT site).*We all know that you are not supposed to write "accused shooter." But "alleged shooter" is OK. The rationale, as I understand it, is that the first implies X is a shooter who is accused. But if that were true, then "accused" would be redundant. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the public sees no distinction between the the two phrases. People interpret "accused shooter" in the way it's meant--as the person accused of the shooting. I'd like to know what others think of this taboo.*

ToddJBehme · **Posted:** Thu Oct 30, 2003 6:16 pm

You're probably right, but it's easy to change. Better to do that than watch payments on a libel judgment be garnished from your wages for 20 years.

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Fri Oct 31, 2003 6:08 am

why not just call him a suspect?

ShiningPath · **Posted:** Fri Oct 31, 2003 11:53 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Todd J. Behme:
You're probably right, but it's easy to change. Better to do that than watch payments on a libel judgment be garnished from your wages for 20 years.<hr></blockquote>No one's going win a libel judgment because you called him or her an "accused shooter," unless he or she was never officially accused. And even then, if the person could be labeled a "public figure," the newspaper would skate.
By the way, wages are "garnisheed," not "garnished." Unless you're putting a decorative assortment of parsley and watercress around your paycheck.

ToddJBehme · **Posted:** Fri Oct 31, 2003 2:38 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ShiningPath:
By the way, wages are "garnisheed," not "garnished." Unless you're putting a decorative assortment of parsley and watercress around your paycheck.<hr></blockquote>I should've looked it up before I posting the response, but a dictionary appears to endorse how I used "garnish."[ October 31, 2003: Message edited by: Todd J. Behme ]

ShiningPath · **Posted:** Fri Oct 31, 2003 3:05 pm

Webster's New World College Dictionary (3rd Edition, Macmillan USA) backs my case, Todd, but the truth is that weird spellings like "garnisheed" will be gone from the language soon anyway, and I won't mourn the passing of "garnishee" any more than I mourned the passing of the eight-track.

Rio · **Posted:** Fri Oct 31, 2003 11:32 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ShiningPath:
Webster's New World College Dictionary (3rd Edition, Macmillan USA) backs my case, Todd, but the truth is that weird spellings like "garnisheed" will be gone from the language soon anyway, and I won't mourn the passing of "garnishee" any more than I mourned the passing of the eight-track.<hr></blockquote>The third edition? Dude, it's time to pick up a copy of the fourth, which has been out for four years now.The fourth edition has reduced the definition of "garnishee" to that of an alternate word choice for the legal-sense "garnish," while adding that "garnishee" is "now rare in U.S. legal usage."Not that I've missed it.

Testy Copy Editors

J'accuse

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links