ForumGarden

Listen to how calm and polite this guy is on the 911 call.

Disabled Vet Saves Pregnant Woman - NBC News

We in England have only one meaning for the word Vet. I merely mention this because it's odd that two such different usages have grown up. Here it's a contraction of Veterinarian, what might be called an animal doctor. I have no idea what a citizen of the US calls a Veterinarian but I presume Vet isn't an option.

Oh, I call my Veterinarian a Vet also.

Yup. A Vet can be either a Veterinarian, or a Veteran of the military. A new usage of late, though is for an experienced member of some other service, such as a veteran police officer, or veteran Fire Fighter, or the like.

LarsMac;1476181 wrote: Yup. A Vet can be either a Veterinarian, or a Veteran of the military. A new usage of late, though is for an experienced member of some other service, such as a veteran police officer, or veteran Fire Fighter, or the like.


If I may?

An American Vet is ex armed services, for any sort of term or type of service. It used to be for long term conflict served personnel, as I understand the word.

Bruv;1476185 wrote: If I may?

An American Vet is ex armed services, for any sort of term or type of service. It used to be for long term conflict served personnel, as I understand the word.


That's what Lars said.

LarsMac;1476181 wrote: Yup. A Vet can be either a Veterinarian, or a Veteran of the military. A new usage of late, though is for an experienced member of some other service, such as a veteran police officer, or veteran Fire Fighter, or the like.


I have no intention of diverting the thread - by all means discuss the OP as well - but your use of "Veteran" leaves me with a question. Where you say "an experienced member" you match English-English usage very well, since here a veteran is someone with long experience of an occupation but may still be employed at it. I had always thought US usage was the same as our "ex-serviceman" which differs in two ways, firstly that the length of service is immaterial - a person's a Vet however briefly they served - and secondly that the veteran is only a veteran by virtue of no longer being in the services, nobody still serving in the forces is a Vet. How much have I misunderstood?

AnneBoleyn;1476188 wrote: That's what Lars said.


He did not........not by my understanding anyway, could be me though.

Isn't English a wonderful language?

LarsMac;1476198 wrote: Isn't English a wonderful language?
It's amazingly self-contradictory though. In US usage, a veteran anchorman is someone who was an anchorman a long time ago and still is. A retired veteran anchorman is an ex-anchorman, he's only remains a veteran if he served in the armed forces earlier in his life, his long standing as an anchorman is immaterial. And none of it requires service in the Navy at all, so the anchor itself is plainly a red herring.

Without wishing to introduce controversy, but having misunderstood the thread title totally, my first reaction was that perhaps the Vet had used tranquilizing darts. This leads me to suggest that perhaps all law enforcement should be policed by officers armed with tranquilizer darts rather than lethal ammunition rounds, and that the general public might then follow suit when performing these citizen interventions.

I suspect the latter is impossible because, unlike lethal ammunition rounds, it is illegal for the general unlicensed US public to possess tranquilizer darts, but I'm only guessing.

spot;1476189 wrote: I have no intention of diverting the thread - by all means discuss the OP as well - but your use of "Veteran" leaves me with a question. Where you say "an experienced member" you match English-English usage very well, since here a veteran is someone with long experience of an occupation but may still be employed at it. I had always thought US usage was the same as our "ex-serviceman" which differs in two ways, firstly that the length of service is immaterial - a person's a Vet however briefly they served - and secondly that the veteran is only a veteran by virtue of no longer being in the services, nobody still serving in the forces is a Vet. How much have I misunderstood?


Oh I have no objection to where this thread is going. You never know what will capture the interest.

I've always considered a Service Vet to be someone who has served in war/conflict. I think it is because I grew up with the Vietnam Vets.

flopstock;1476204 wrote: I've always considered a Service Vet to be someone who has served in war/conflict. I think it is because I grew up with the Vietnam Vets.


There is, I believe, a Federal Office for Veteran's Affairs - I may have the name wrong, that sounds too like a dating agency for five-star Generals who have no convenient biographer. My point, should I get to it, is that they'll presumably define who falls within their clientele. We could look.

Interesting perspective:

what-im-not-a-veteran

LarsMac;1476212 wrote: Interesting perspective:

what-im-not-a-veteran


I found a succinct definition at the very start of US Code Title 38: The term “veteran means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.

They're a damn sight more particular and specific when it comes to "surviving spouse".

I wonder what additional conditions exist other than honorable and dishonorable, they seem to cover the territory with no gaps.

I don't really understand what "active" is there to exclude, either.

spot;1476213 wrote: I found a succinct definition at the very start of US Code Title 38: The term “veteran means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.

They're a damn sight more particular and specific when it comes to "surviving spouse".

I wonder what additional conditions exist other than honorable and dishonorable, they seem to cover the territory with no gaps.

I don't really understand what "active" is there to exclude, either.Honorable-Mention and Dishonorable-Mention?

What's a Sheriff?

Ahso!;1476214 wrote: What's a Sheriff?
The King's personal representative, or "Reeve", in a Shire.





eta: The OED puts it more informatively: the representative of the royal authority in a shire, who presided in the shire-moot, and was responsible for the administration of the royal demesne and the execution of the law.



eta2: To put this into a more American context, the sheriff represents the civil authority within a county in the execution of the law. Shire is a word more associated by Americans with Hobbits than with English Regional Administration, but "county" is an adequate synonym on many occasions.

The term “veteran means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.


If 'active' means service in a conflict area ,rather than active as in employed, then that was my definition. An ex serviceman or women that has seen service in a war arena.

Bruv;1476218 wrote: If 'active' means service in a conflict area ,rather than active as in employed, then that was my definition. An ex serviceman or women that has seen service in a war arena.


I had thought it was perhaps used here to distinguish from the Reserve.

spot;1476221 wrote: I had thought it was perhaps used here to distinguish from the Reserve.


A Reserve that served in a war zone would no longer be a Reserve ?

Bruv;1476224 wrote: A Reserve that served in a war zone would no longer be a Reserve ?


I couldn't hazard a guess. Elements of the National Reserve fought in Iraq under their own name, surely.

Why should I take a sheriff's word that a vet shooting anyone was the right thing? Should the sheriff's word put the matter to rest?

Ahso!;1476227 wrote: Why should I take a sheriff's word that a vet shooting anyone was the right thing? Should the sheriff's word put the matter to rest?


He has a gun, a badge and a lockup. Disputing with a sheriff is an act I would hesitate to attempt.

spot;1476229 wrote: He has a gun, a badge and a lockup. Disputing with a sheriff is an act I would hesitate to attempt.


If the guy and two men shot were white, everything will remain calm. If this vet is white and they were African American, expect this to blow up into a racist incident.

Ahso!;1476227 wrote: Why should I take a sheriff's word that a vet shooting anyone was the right thing? Should the sheriff's word put the matter to rest?


Don't know that you should, but he probably has a better view to the events than either of us does.

LarsMac;1476237 wrote: Don't know that you should, but he probably has a better view to the events than either of us does.


The office doesn't make the incumbent's judgement faultless. The only two Sheriffs' names I can bring to mind are Sheriff Clark and Wyatt Earp, and Earp wasn't a Sheriff at all.

spot;1476243 wrote: The office doesn't make the incumbent's judgement faultless. The only two Sheriffs' names I can bring to mind are Sheriff Clark and Wyatt Earp, and Earp wasn't a Sheriff at all.


He was a Marshall?

AnneBoleyn;1476245 wrote: He was a Marshall?


Either he was or Virgil, assuming so godforsaken a frontier town in the badlands as Tombstone had any legal authority to appoint one.

I used to watch the TV series starring Hugh O'Brien, a real straight type guy, so I was amused when learning he was (or is) gay. The 1950's was a despicable era in social history, IMO.

eta, Mr. O'Brien. I don't know about Wyatt.

A mustache coupled with a fondness for guns is a dead giveaway.

spot;1476253 wrote: A mustache coupled with a fondness for guns is a dead giveaway.


You're thinking of the Village People.

I have a moustache, I have a healthy respect for guns, but I am not gay..................so far.

Bruv;1476258 wrote: I have a moustache, I have a healthy respect for guns, but I am not gay..................so far.


The right bundle of fun hasn't hove into your field of view yet, that's all. Perhaps you never met Dean Martin.

spot;1476261 wrote: The right bundle of fun hasn't hove into your field of view yet, that's all. Perhaps you never met Dean Martin.


You are right, I have never met Dean Martin..............not my type.

My interpretation of a Veteran, which I admit may not be in line with the actual Dictionary Definition, is someone who has voluntarily served at least 2 consecutive terms (as opposed to a conscript) of any of the Military Services with honour.

AnneBoleyn;1476245 wrote: He was a Marshall?


Yup. He was a federal Marshall. The Sheriff of Tombstone was one of the biggest crooks.

flopstock;1476177 wrote: Listen to how calm and polite this guy is on the 911 call.

Disabled Vet Saves Pregnant Woman - NBC News


I really don't like the hype, myself. I don't care if the guy is a veteran or disabled. I want to know if the “hero is a plumber. Plumbers aren't given enough media attention any longer.