>>>>>>>>I've been beating the drum about "repeat offenders" for the past three or four years. I think we may be making some headway now...
>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/abfdcl
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Our area experienced a 32 percentage increase in robberies in 2008:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=321190
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Looks like they need a RTCC and CyberWatch! and some Blue CRUSH
>>>>>
>>>>>You could always automatically enlist them in the army and send them to remove IEDs in Afghanistan.
>>>>
>>>>Hard to believe there actually was a time when criminals (violators of some crimes) were given the choice of jail time or military service....
>>>
>>>How do you violate a crime? ;-)
>>
>>ROFL. Slippery fingers this morning...
>
>BTW, why is it on those US police video shows does the commentator always refer to teh guy who's just barreled his way through town, doing 100 mph, and had the cops following him for half an hour, as "the Suspect".
>
>Now I know jurisprudence dictates that a man is innocent until proven guilty, but in these cases the man hasn't been named, and whoever is driving IS "the perpetrator". He's not suspected of doing it - he's just been seen doing it, no matter who he is.
>
>On the other hand, in similar British shows it always irks me when the cop is relating to camera what's happened and refers to the, say, vicious, drunken, foul-mouthed low-life as "The gentleman was seen clubbing the innocent man with a spiked baseball bat ..."

Cop-speak is a language in itself. My understanding is it's not that hard to mess up a case with a mistake in the official report, a mistake a defense attorney can exploit, and no policeman (or woman) wants to do that. So the written reports tend to fall back on this stilted, CYA jargon. "Suspect then reached inside his coat and responding officers responded with appropriate action." Translation: four cops at once filled the suspect with holes.