Nance’s prior arrest records indicated that he was previously arrested for aggravated discharge of a weapon involving a woman.
It needs to be specified if you discharge your weapon and a woman is involved? Because that’s…a different charge than if a man is involved? What if it’s a woman discharging the weapon? Still phrased like this? What a weird thing to write.
Would you have been happier if it had said, “Nance’s prior arrest records indicated that he was previously arrested for aggravated discharge of a weapon involving a person?” Because that sounds awkward to me.
Aggravated discharge implies involving another person so that wouldn’t be said. It feels like something is being hinted at - likely domestic violence - without being explicitly said for some reason. I think that’s the weirdness being commented on. If it was domestic violence why not say that? But if not that what is being hinted at?
It’s probably overthinking, but this is the internet.
You’re right about the backyard but that would involve a person or people. If the discharge is aggravated, by definition it implies that people are involved. Adding the gender of the person that is implied is done for an emotional response from certain groups by not providing context that is useful. We fill in the blank with our biases.
I’m not sure why you take issue with the facts that the word aggravated in this context means that the people are implied, or that adding words is not easier to read. It’s okay that you didn’t know what aggravated means, but it still doesn’t change the fact that this is redundant information. Redundant information is harder to read, and the specific gender of the victim does not add anything to the context for the headline, a de facto harder to read title. It’s possible that this was done on purpose, or that the author was also unaware that aggravated means people are involved and felt they needed to add words.
Because shooting a gun in your front yard at nobody in particular because you’re a crazy fucker is different than firing a gun in a way as to threaten a person or persons.
It needs to be specified if you discharge your weapon and a woman is involved? Because that’s…a different charge than if a man is involved? What if it’s a woman discharging the weapon? Still phrased like this? What a weird thing to write.
It implies a domestic dispute rather than, like a bar fight.
Right, because bars are man only.
It must be exhausting to be constantly on the lookout for things to be offended by.
Nah, at some point it’s pretty much automatic. I don’t even have to think about it. It’s like ‘yo mama’ jokes, you just see them.
And only men can perpetuate domestic violence of course, it’s 1946!
No. They are saying that he was previoualy arrested for aggravated discharge of a weapon and that the aforementioned incident involved a woman.
Would you have been happier if it had said, “Nance’s prior arrest records indicated that he was previously arrested for aggravated discharge of a weapon involving a person?” Because that sounds awkward to me.
Aggravated discharge implies involving another person so that wouldn’t be said. It feels like something is being hinted at - likely domestic violence - without being explicitly said for some reason. I think that’s the weirdness being commented on. If it was domestic violence why not say that? But if not that what is being hinted at?
It’s probably overthinking, but this is the internet.
I think that they’re saying that the person is implied, aggravated discharge of a weapon with no person involved is just target practice.
I don’t think it is implied. You can do that in your back yard towards a group of neighbors in the next yard who are pissing you off with a party.
Doing it with a single other person involved is a specific situation and specifying the gender just makes the copy easier to scan.
You’re right about the backyard but that would involve a person or people. If the discharge is aggravated, by definition it implies that people are involved. Adding the gender of the person that is implied is done for an emotional response from certain groups by not providing context that is useful. We fill in the blank with our biases.
Yes. Either a person or multiple people. This shows that it was just one person. And the gender is just for easier-to-read copy.
I’m not sure why you take issue with the facts that the word aggravated in this context means that the people are implied, or that adding words is not easier to read. It’s okay that you didn’t know what aggravated means, but it still doesn’t change the fact that this is redundant information. Redundant information is harder to read, and the specific gender of the victim does not add anything to the context for the headline, a de facto harder to read title. It’s possible that this was done on purpose, or that the author was also unaware that aggravated means people are involved and felt they needed to add words.
Why not just end the sentence with the word “weapon”? That’s the important part.
Because shooting a gun in your front yard at nobody in particular because you’re a crazy fucker is different than firing a gun in a way as to threaten a person or persons.
That’s what the “aggravated” part is for. You don’t get “aggravated” tacked on if another person is not involved.
Do you think most people understand that?
They probably would have specified if it was a man, too.
You’re making up things to be upset about.
Nice of you to notice the subtitles of the American justice system. This is actually a much harsher crime than just leaving the gender undefined.