Free Minds & Free Markets
New York Mayor Michael
Bloomberg told CNN's Piers Morgan last night that he doesn't
"understand why police officers across this country don’t stand up
collectively and say we’re going to go on strike, we’re not going
to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do
what’s required to keep us safe."
We've been hearing a lot of that recently. Earlier this year,
The New York Times reprinted a Department of Justice press
release and slapped this lede on top of it: “As violent crime has
decreased across the country, a disturbing trend has emerged:
Rising numbers of police officers are being killed.”
Bloomberg and The New York Times are both wrong:
civilians regular people
were killed by cops than cops were killed by perps.
In 2011, 72 cops were shot and killed in the entire U.S.;
in L.A. County alone, cops
54 suspects the same year--22 percent of those
people were unarmed.
As Scott Reeder
at Reason this morning, "Farmers, ranchers, commercial
fishermen, loggers, garbage collectors, truck drivers, construction
workers, pilots, steel workers, roofers, and others are far more
likely to face death on the jobs than police or firefighters,
according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics."
And as Choire Sicha
this year, "2008 was the ten-year low for police officers being
killed, and 2012 is, so far, year-to-date, down 49% from last
Bloomberg, the commander of " went on to
say that "police officers want to go home to their families.
And we’re doing everything we can to make their job more difficult,
but more importantly, more dangerous, by leaving guns in the hands
of people who shouldn’t have them and letting people who have those
guns buy things like armor piercing bullets.’’
The statistics say that the jobs of police officers are getting
increasingly safer. After all, even the smallest departments now
have access to battle-tested body armor, weaponry, vehicles, and
SWAT and raid training courtesy of outfits like
Academi ( "who
conduct warrant service, fugitive apprehension, SWAT operations and
drug search warrants who are in need of sound tactics and
techniques"); asset forfeiture funds from the Department of
J and a neutered-and-spayed 4th Amendment, courtesy of the
United States Supreme Court.
Thanks to all of that, cops are more likely than ever to return
safely to their families every night.
But what about the rest of us? What about Kelly Thomas, ?
Or Patricia Cook, ? Or Andrew
Scott, ? Or Nick Christie, ? Or Seth
Adams, shot four times by a cop behind his family business,
? Or Wendell Allen, ? Or Ramarley Graham, ? Or
Kyle Miller, ? Or
Todd Blair, ?
That's a smattering of names from the last year or so. A
complete list is impossible, though you could spend months culling
names from local media outlets. It would be significantly longer if
we included people who were shot, but didn' or people who
were just shot at by cops. It would be exponentially
longer if we included people who were beaten, intimidated, wrongly
arrested/incarcerated, or otherwise abused by police
Didn't these folks want to go home to their families? Didn't
they want to be safe when they were in their homes with their
They didn't get memorials. Their hometowns didn't shut down
traffic for their funerals. The mayor didn't speak at their
prayer vigil, if they had a prayer vigil. Their congressmen did not
speechify about them on C-SPAN. No one proposed laws in their
honor. No city or state official called for a national conversation
about anything.
In most cases, here's what happened, and often happens: Cops who
kill get a paid vacation, and the local district attorney, or state
attorney determines that protocol was followed. The cop comes back
with a tan and a mandate. A big ugly shrug is standard operating
procedure.
Maybe B maybe America's cops should go on
Mike Riggs is a staff writer at The Atlantic Cities.
Follow Mike Riggs on
Reason In Your Inbox!
GET REASON MAGAZINE
Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online
Matt Welch: Why do Edward Snowden’s supporters want to give government more control over the Internet?
Declan McCullagh: The Feds Want a Back Door Into Your Computer. Again.
How to Break the Internet:
The biggest threat to the Net isn’t cable companies. It’s government.
Will recent breakthroughs in computer science make truly free markets a reality?
PlusHow Obamacare happened, and what might happen next.
And much more.
advertisement
J.D. Tuccille
Shikha Dalmia
Shikha Dalmia
Jesse Walker
Scott Shackford
Jacob Sullum
Peter Suderman
Peter Suderman
Peter Suderman
Sheldon Richman
Matt Welch
Ed Krayewski
Ed Krayewski
Matt Welch
Charles Paul Freund
Emily Ekins
Emily Ekins
Emily Ekins
Sara Mayeux
Gene Healy
Elizabeth Nolan Brown英语中的虚拟语气的语法是什么？相关注意事项呢？_百度知道
英语中的虚拟语气的语法是什么？相关注意事项呢？
提问者采纳
主语+过去时 　　主句、非真实条件句中的条件从句有时不表达出来, we would be working now：主语+had done 　　主句;could have met her，不用was.如果他是空闲的、 有时，我就会借给你些，就不会犯这样的错误了.If I knew his telephone number： 　　But for his help.If Icould&#47.If she were to be here next Monday。 　　4，我们就不能去滑冰了，我就跟他谈谈, we would not go skating。 　　②从句的动作与现在事实相反。 　　We didn&#39。（事实、从句可以省略其中的一个。 　　6，或与事实相反，而主句的动作与现在或现在正在发生的事实不符，虚拟语气的形式应作相应的调整，表示主观愿望或某种强烈情感时。英语中的语气分为陈述语气，我就会告诉她这件事的始末。 eg，结果主句和条件从句的谓语动作若不是同时发生时，虚拟语气） 　　If there were no air：来的可能性很小） 　　2, she would agree with us，虚拟条件句中虚拟语气用来表示说话人的主观愿望或假想：①if+主语+were to do 主句，我会带把伞，我现在也会成为一个工程师了 　　If they had informed us. 　　要是他认识她的话. 　　如果他明天来这儿的话。(事实。 　　eg，不一定是事实。（不可能没有空气, should. 　　要是他答应去的话;could&#47，她会同意我们的。虚拟语气通过谓语动词的特殊形式来表示，我就会告诉你. 　　如果他今天有空的话：没带钱） 　　5。 　　（事实，一类为真实条件句. 如果他听我的劝告的话。 　　If he knew her. 他本该完成了, he might pass the exam，他将错过巴士. If I had gotten there earlier。（事实, people would die、祈使语气： 　　If he doesn&#39、 有时。 　　如;might+do　 　　eg：主语+should&#47、表示对将来情况的主观推测 　　从句。 　　②省略主句 　　If I were at home now，而不是根据客观实际，也用虚拟语气。（真实） 　　If I were you. 　　如果下周日下大雪： 　　1, there would be no living things on the earth，我马上就会去.If he studied harder, he will ask me to tell stories、介词短语. 　　如果他们通知过我们的话, otherwise we would have telephoned him。 　　7，在虚拟语气的从句中.If he had taken my advice，虚拟条件句中, we would send him there：不知道） 　　3. 　　如果她下周一来这儿的话。 　　You could have passed this exam. 　　如果她在这儿的话。 　　（事实：没有努力）　 　　2. 要是只有我得到它了该多好啊, we would not come here now，我们已经聘用他来这里工作了，主：①主语+should/t know his telephone number，if可以省略, I should&#47, I would talk to him： 　　If I had worked hard at school.如果我是你，只暗含在副词。非真实条件句表示的是假设或实际可能性不大的情况，他肯定会去问候她了。非真实：主语+should/might+do　 　　③if+主语+should+do ③主语+should&#47，这种多用于书面语. 　　如果我在学校学习刻苦的话，来表示说话人的一种强烈的感情. 　　如果他再努力些, but for…等 　　eg，故采用虚拟语气、虚拟语气三类。 （事实;could&#47.注意，条件会暗含在短语中.如果没有空气。　 在表示虚假的, I would tell her about the matter，否则我们就会给他打电话, I would take an umbrella. 　　要不是他的帮助,I would go to look for him、与事实相反的或难以实现的情况时用虚拟语气;would/would&#47。 　　If only I had got it. 　　如果我是你,would&#47、表示与过去事实相反的情况 　　从句;could&#47：不知能否下雪） 　　3。 　　①从句的动作与过去事实相反、 当虚拟条件句的谓语动词含有were。 （我不是你.If I had any money with me，这时条件从句要用倒装语序、上下文或其他方式表示出来, I could lend you some，虚拟语气）1, I would tell you，我们就派他去, I would not have made such great progress，一类为非真实条件句。即当一个人说话时欲强调其所说的话是基于自己的主观想法, I would be an engineer, he would have greeted her。（事实。 　　Were she here. 要是我现在在家里该多好啊。( 真实) 　　If he is free.If there were a heavy snow next Sunday，我们还会在工作呢. 　　要是没有你的指导. 　　我们不知道他的电话号码;would&#47。 　　①省略从句 　　He womight+have done　 　　eg，就用虚拟语气.If there were no air or water、表示与现在事实相反的情况，地球上就不会有生物. 　　如果我是你;might+do 　　eg, had等词置于句首： 　　从句。
条件句可分为两类，我不会取得如此大的进步. 　　如果我带钱了, Imight+do 　　②if+主语+did&#47。 　　eg。 　　Had he learnt about computers，如without…;could&#47, had时;t hurry up，就能通过考试了, we would have sent him to Beijing, too： 　　1：没有听我的话） 　　3。非真实，他会要求我讲故事.如果他不快点，在多数情况下，人就会死亡，即把were：　 　　1，这种句子叫做含蓄条件句，而主句的动作与过去事实不符： 　　If he were free today, he would not have made such a mistake，我就会见到她. 　　如果他懂一些电脑知识的话. 　　如果没有水和空气，动词be的过去时态一律用were： 　　Should were ②主语+should&#47，我们会已经派他去北京了。（事实。 　　8. 　　如果我知道他的电话号码。 　　5：去晚了） 　　2，我们现在就不会来这里了：我不可能是你） 　　2, we would have hiwould&#47.If he should come here tomorrow：地球上既有空气也有水) 　　4. 你本该通过这次考试的。（事实，所说的是一个条件。 　　eg，就会去找他, should. 如果我早到那儿：If I were you。 　　Without your instruction，而不表示客观存在的事实
其他类似问题
按默认排序
其他2条回答
从句还可以用were +to do 的格式if you were t虚拟语气的语法特点。“要是我是你： If you come tomrrow.英语里有一特定的词，这个想法只表示自已的意愿：从句和主句都用过去时。别人不一定照作, you shoud have bought the new book.建议suggest---suggesting--suggestedour teacher suggests that we should get up early。if you showed me your new book。 if you had gone to the book shop yesterday，或都实际上不是这样的，或是不大可能是这样的.初中学过的一个句子： if +had done，我就天天早起.对现在的假设, I would show you my new toys：倒退一个时态, I would go with you。”“If I were you，主句用SHOUD+现在完成时.2：对过去的假设：“如果你明天来：1, I woud get up early everyday.&quot。如 .our teacher gives us her suggestion that w“你应该早来五分钟”&quot，因为这也是一个虚拟句，都要用到虚拟语气：形式和对现在的假设一样外;you shoud have bee here five minuts ago.注意点.&quot。有三种形式，表示一种心愿或建议性质的, should have done,I will give you a book.
从句用过去完成时.对将来的假设。”这个句子的从句也只能用现在时，我将送你一本书。从句中都要用shoud 加动词原形.it is suggested that we shoud get up early虚拟语气就是表达自己的主观想法
一、与现在事实相反若与现在事实相反，虚拟语气的条件从句的谓语用过去式(be通常用were)，主句谓语用“should (would, could, might)+动词原形”。如：If you took a taxi，you'd get there quicker. 如果你坐出租车去，你可以快一点到那里。(但你不坐)If I knew her number I could ring her up. 要是我知道她的电话号码，我就可以给她打电话了。(可惜我不知道)二、与过去事实相反若与过去事实相反，虚拟语气的条件从句的谓语用过去完成时(had+过去分词)，主句谓语用“should (would, could, might)+have+过去分词”。如：If I'd left sooner，I'd have been on time. 要是我早点动身，我就准时到了。(但我动身太迟了)If we had found him earlier we could have saved his life. 要是我们当时早点找到他的话，我们就可以救活他。(可惜我们找到他太晚了)三、与将来事实相反若与将来事实相反，条件从句的谓语用过去式(be通常用were)，主句谓语用“should (would, could, might)+动词原形”。如：If he went，would you go too? 如果他去，你也去吗?(大概他不会去)If I asked him，I'm sure he'd help us. 如果我向他提出要求，肯定他会帮助我们。(不过我不打算这样做) 注意与说明：对于与将来事实相反的情形，请注意以下几点：一是这里说的与将来事实相反，实为对将来情况的推测；二是此用法中的条件从句谓语除用过去式外，有时也用“should+动词原形”(表示可能性极小，常译为“万一”)或“were to+动词原形”(表示与将来事实相反的假设)；三是当条件从句使用“should+动词原形”这样的谓语时，主句谓语除可用“should (would, could, might)+动词原形”这样的虚拟语气外，也可用陈述语气或祈使语气。如：I should see him, I'll tell him. 万一我见到他，我就告诉他。If it should rain tomorrow, don’t expect me. 万一明天下雨，就别等我了。
您可能关注的推广
虚拟语气的相关知识
等待您来回答
下载知道APP
随时随地咨询
出门在外也不愁