Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> As I understand it, "identified by law enforcement" was some guy in the Connecticut State Police talking to the media without authorization.

I don't see how somebody from the state police, talking to the media, saying "Ryan Lanza is the name on the driver's license" does not constitute being "identified by law enforcement".

It may have been "erroneously identified by law enforcement" but that does not make "identified by law enforcement" a false statement, no matter how much you want it to be.




Because the word "identified" comes with special significance. It's a positive identification from the police as a matter of fact, and it's an official position. It carries weight and is reportable without the risk of libel. A low-level lieutenant who heard a name and then told the media to curry favor is not identifying. He's providing a lead, which must be confirmed from another source.

Compare: We are positively identifying the suspect as John Doe, who is in custody.

With: Hey, we are looking at John Doe as the suspect.

One is identification, the other isn't. It's a legally-important word and distinction. Again, I worked in the field, and your shot at the end about my personal bias was uncalled for and marred your otherwise good parry.


A Law Enforcement Officer, provided the IDENTITY of the suspect. There fore IDENTIFIED by law enforcement is semantically and connotatively correct. An identification was made, and it was made by a member of law enforcement.

People on the other end of the TV do not ponder whether the identification was a legally-important one or not. They only know, via both of your examples, that a cop said that I guy named John Doe is a suspect.

The divide between intent and reality is in important concept to grasp, especially when you finally put your web application in the hands of soccer mom's and office administrators.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: