UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

Mr. Grammar.

If it were asked "Who are you the attorney for?", it sort of seems like "Who" is the subject. Think of the equivalent question "Who is your client?" That clearly has "who" as the subject.

So it can't be simply the order of the words, can it? Does it have something to do with the fact that my proposed rewrite ("Who are you the attorney for?") on ends in a preposition? I understand from you Arts Majors that this is a bad thing. Are they connected? Are we not supposed to end sentences in a preposition because they improperly make it seem as the object of the sentence is actually the subject?

If anyone can answer these probing questions, I figure it's you.

One cannot end a sentence with a preposition.

The sentence "Who are you an attorney for?" should instead be "For whom are you serving as an attorney?"

(no message)

(no message)

Almost interchangeable but the subject is who.

it's actually the object of the preposition "for". so the objective form ("whom") is required to be correct.

(no message)

(no message)

Over the last 200 years, the pronoun whom has been on a steady decline. Despite its waning use in speech and ongoing speculation about its imminent extinction, whom still holds a spot in the English language, particularly in formal writing. Understanding when and how to use this pronoun can set your writing apart.

What’s the difference between whom and who?
Whom is often confused with who. Who is a subjective-case pronoun, meaning it functions as a subject in a sentence, and whom is an objective-case pronoun, meaning it functions as an object in a sentence. Who, like I, he, she, and they, performs actions (as in “Who rescued the dog?”). Who is doing the rescuing in this sentence.Whom, like me, him, her, and them, is acted on (as in “Whom did you see?”) Whom is being seen here, not doing the seeing. Whom more commonly appears when it follows a preposition, as in the salutation “To whom it may concern.” Does it concern he? No. Does it concern him? Yes.

How do you decide to use who or whom?
When in doubt, substitute him (sometimes you’ll have to rephrase the sentence) and see if that sounds right. If him is OK, then whom is OK. If the more natural substitute is he, then go with who. For example: “You talked to whom?” It would be incorrect to say “You talked to he?”, but saying “You talked to him?” makes grammatical sense.

All of that said, in informal speech and writing, speakers will often opt for who where whom has traditionally been used. This choice sounds more natural and less formal to most native English speakers.


Link: https://www.dictionary.com/e/whom-vs-who/

Whoever is doing that verb is the subject.

that he was wrong then too.

(no message)

(no message)

Looks like he picked the wrong week to give up killing.

(no message)

He should be punished some way.

Of course, the very same prosecutor prosecuting the cop said a week ago that a tazer is a deadly weapon. If true, then the shooting was justified. The two-faced, demagoguerish (is that a word?) approach to the law, which changes depending on who the defendant is...that is BS banana republic stuff. We are not a nation of laws any longer. There is just no way that we can pretend we are. Very unfortunate, that.

What did he think was going to happen when he pulled out his gun?

This, one suspects, is why his partner has agreed to flip on him. That doesn’t happen much.

One could argue that of the cop was tased, the perp could have taken his gun and killed him.

“Of course she deserved to be raped by my client!”

I guarantee you that Officer Rauff’s defense will not start with “What did the perp think would happen ....?”

The Felony Murder charge is a reach, but regarding Mr. Brooks as “a perp” is exactly why Officer Rauff finds himself in his current legal predicament.

Brooks was not fleeing from an armed robbery or home invasion. It was a ticky tack DUI arrest involving an unarmed person asleep in a Wendy’s parking lot, who had been fully compliant for 40 minutes until being cuffed. During the scuffle, Brooks made no attempt to grab either officer’s firearm.

Brooks was running away with the taser belonging to the other cop who had twice used it on Brooks.

Rauff had his taser in his hand as he gave chase. He did not use it. Instead, Rauff drew his firearm and fired 3 shots, striking Brooks twice in the back.

To the extent the defense is that deadly force was justified in a swiftly unfolding scenario against a man who had just overpowered two officers and was firing a taser gun at the cops giving chase, ... go for it.

Would not recommend a cavalier approach of “what did the perp think would happen ...” as it is the quickest way to a bad outcome for the defendant.

(no message)

The same district attorney argued 2 weeks ago in a different case that a taser is a deadly weapon.

I think the cop was overcharged. But with a guy who just overpowered 2 officers trying to put him in handcuffs for DUI, stole one of the cop’s lethal weapons and shot it at the officer while trying to allude arrest, I would not have wanted to be in the officer’s situation having to decide in a split second how to respond.

(no message)

(no message)

In times of high stress there really isn't time to think about things like that, training takes over.

This is way different than the Floyd situation.

If so, then the training needs to be updated.

It was a bad decision, but guess what don’t fight with a cop over a DUI, take his taser and shoot it at him. That’s an even worse decision. Not criminal in my view.

(no message)

(no message)

Then he kicked the guy’s body. Then he let the guy bleed out for two and a half minutes before calling for help.

Has he not seen any TV in the last few weeks? What did he think was going to happen?

Wasn’t this a time to be on one’s best behavior?

Fuck this idiot.

That DA is also full of shit as he just charged a bunch of. Ops for using a taser as a deadly weapon.

At least for a while.

He failed. Fuck this idiot.

His partner seems to agree.

didn’t even wait for the investigation report from GBI. The same mob humping DA who already declared tasers a deadly weapon when police use them to jam up the cops who arrested the college kids. #Railroad job.

(no message)

Or gone on a ride-along with a police officer? Not so easy when you have almost no time to make a decision.

Link: Not so easy to decide when to shoot, not shoot

The guy had to be an imbecile. He deserves whatever he gets.

(no message)

Clearly, this cop doesn't understand de-escalation. And what an idiot for not considering how BLM and their sycophants would react in the 1.7 seconds he had to make such a decision. Stupid moron.

(no message)

(no message)

I can picture the urine stain spreading on your khakis, you piece of shit.

100% with Frank L on this.

(no message)

(no message)