Rant: That is NOT a "gentleman"

[Laurie4b]

What is with law enforcement spokespeople? I can't believe how often they use the word "gentleman" to refer to a perp. Excuse me, but the word does not mean "male person." Why give that level of respect for a perp? The word "man" or "guy" would do just fine. Actually, I wouldn't be averse to "jerk." I just read this excerpt today on a newsite :

 

"Judd said one of the agents was shocked to discover that a suspect, 33-year-old Tommy Dupre, had been his son's former baseball coach.

 

"This gentleman coached youth sports baseball in Lakeland. Our undercover sergeant recognized him because he coached his son 8-10 years of age," Judd said. "

 

It was a child sex sting. The "gentleman" had showed up with condoms in one hand and candy bars in the other, thinking he was coming to have sex with a girl aged 8-14. THAT IS NOT A GENTLEMAN. argh.

 

:rant:

[Tutor]

In criminal reports, I wish spokespeople and news reporters would use the word "suspect" or "the accused." In all other reporting, I wish they would use the subject's name, whatever pronoun applies (him, she, they, etc), or another proper descriptor (the team, the man, the spokeswoman, the organization, etc). My skin crawls when anyone in the media uses the terms "guy" or "guys" when reporting. It sounds lazy and disrespectful, imo.

[Garga]

I think it has something to do with innocent until proven guilty and the formalities of lawyer-speak.

 

By lawyer-speak, I mean, for example, the way contracts are written, where people are known as a "party" or some other such legalese.

[Britomart]

Well, technically, it means you're just below the nobility and have some land that give you income . . . ;)

[KidsHappen]

I think it has something to do with innocent until proven guilty and the formalities of lawyer-speak.

 

:iagree: In the eyes of the law (and supposedly everyone else) this man is a gentleman until proven oherwise. It seems as if you are biased towards this man and would hopefully be weeded out as a juror for such a case.

[sweetbasil]

:iagree: In the eyes of the law (and supposedly everyone else) this man is a gentleman until proven oherwise. It seems as if you are biased towards this man and would hopefully be weeded out as a juror for such a case.

 

No, he's not. He's just a man until he proves himself a gentleman.

 

Carrying candy and condoms for young children generally doesn't merit the "gentleman" label.

Edited August 17, 2010 by sweetbasil

[stripe]

I so agree with you.

 

I found this website for a criminal defense law firm; they use the term "gentleman" quite often when referring to their clients. I suspect they are trying to imply someone is a gentleman instead of a criminal. It is all part of trying to paint a picture. Prosecutors often call someone "the defendant" instead of even using the person's name.

[Laurie4b]

No, he's not. He's just a man until he proves himself a gentleman.

 

Carrying candy and condoms for young children generally doesn't merit the "gentleman" label.

 

Exactly.

[smrtmama]

:iagree: In the eyes of the law (and supposedly everyone else) this man is a gentleman until proven oherwise. It seems as if you are biased towards this man and would hopefully be weeded out as a juror for such a case.

 

 

There's also the issue of making sure you speak of the accused politely, lest he turn around and pursue a civil suit against the department after the case! It has happened.

[MamaBlessedThrice]

As far as the word "gentleman" goes, it has been incorrectly used for some time as a way to say "male adult" while being polite. You know, like when participants in a panel discussion are taking questions from the audience and say, "the question from the gentleman in the gray suit there in the rear," etc.

 

But the main point of your rant I have to disagree with, as others have, on the grounds that he's only suspected, not convicted.

 

Is no one shocked or even cognizant that there's no such thing as innocent until proven guilty anymore?

 

In this case, it sounds like he was caught red-handed--from the media account, that is--but unless we were there and saw what happened or are on the jury and have seen credible evidence (and even then the amount of evidence suppression, corrupt/racist/lazy cops, lack of due process, and other corruption going on is staggering), he is NOT a jerk.

 

He's Mr. Smith. Or "the man suspected of X." Or "the person alleged to have committed the crime." Or even "gentleman" (though the former English teacher in me cringes) if that's what every other as-yet-innocent man gets to be called.

 

Having said all that, if it's definitely proven that he IS the man who indeed did this, then by all means: "jerk" or something stronger is in order.

[stripe]

I think "man" is adequate.

 

Then again, my grandma always ends up saying "female" for adult woman; I have no idea why, but she doesn't like to say "lady" for some reason (implications of class systems, which she doesn't approve of, I suspect), but her saying "female" always makes me laugh.