5 ms·
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
by jspthrowaway2 14y ago
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.
- vampirechicken 14y agoA 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.