Alex: I know you're new, but please, next time you're feeling compelled to use "sarcasm quotes" in your reporting --just don't.

It's trite and lazy, and for some of us, things like the "housing emergency" and police use of "excessive force" aren't punchlines.

Euphonius, excessive force is a well-understood legal concept, typically defined as "the use of force greater than that which a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would use under the circumstances."

In contrast, the current "housing emergency" has not been defined at all, with no criteria offered up by our elected officials other than deeming it an "emergency" from on high in order to circumvent the need to actually legislate and pass ordinances and laws through the normal process. Some people can't afford to live in an expensive and desirable major city. I can't afford to live in a beachfront house in Malibu. Is that similarly a "crisis"?

There is no equivalence here as you claim.

Perhaps the quotes are in-place because the officers weren't held legally liable for excessive force, but the DOJ's analysis argues they should have been..? (I see that the city council decided Nutting used an "inappropriate" amount of force according to the linked article, but that doesn't equate to excessive, near as I can tell.)

Reference: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessiv…

Listen "Flavio" whoever you are: I get that you're happy to defend the indefensible if it happens to align with your idiotic opinions. That's why I didn't ask you for them. Nobody did. Every single comment doesn't require your 2-cents. You convince no one of anything --except that you're a pedantic bore with nothing to do except post nonstop on this site.

Why you haven't been banned is a continuing mystery.

@Sok: You seem to be suggesting that Alex is using the quotes to shield himself from repercussions of reporting an allegation as being true when it is unproven and perhaps opening himself up to a defamation claim. But using quotes doesn't accomplish that. In fact, if anything, using a term of art like "excessive force" --quotes or no --requires even more precision. Had he used a more general phrase he'd have plenty more leeway, in fact.

My critique isn't a legal one, it's a stylistic one and a journalistic one: Use of "quotes" that enable you to "say" the "things" you don't have the "factual support" or "guts" to say "explicitly" is lazy. It's also a habit that is readily clear even after just a couple of weeks on the job.

I'm actually allowed to point that out, regardless of the wishes of self-appointed hall monitors like whatshisname up there, who really should just shut his fucking yap.

@Euphonius: I'm just suggesting the quotes are used in a "de facto if not de jure" sort of way rather than sarcastic. That's how it struck me, anyhow. Figure Alex can elaborate if she's so inclined.

@Sok It sure seemed like the housing emergency one was sarcasm, at least. (That's why dipwad up there liked it so much.) This one? It seemed like sarcasm to me, but maybe you're right.

It's still trite, either way. If Alex has something to say, say it, support it, own it. Derisively implying it while preserving your deniability is just gutless.