No, the lawyer is showing him photos of the murder victim. He’s trying to get him to say it is a blue whale so that he can argue that it was a racially motivated attack. Or that it is a sperm whale so he can say it is a sex crime. Pffft. Lawyers.
Here’s woozy’s link without the parameters, which should display the image immediately:
Well, nuts. Omitting the parameters messes up the zoom factor, and that clipped off the caption:
“Objection, Your Honor! Alleged killer whale!“
If the lawyer is showing him a picture of an orca, then he can just point out that it isn’t any kind of whale. Orcas are dolphins, not whales.
Dolphins are subset of whales, in the same way that, say, groundhogs are a type of squirrel.
Eventually, the jury was hung, and Willy went free.
Dolphins are not a subset of whales. Dolphins and whales are two branches of the cetaceans. To say Dolphins are a subset of whales is like saying humans are a subset of monkeys just because they’re both primates.
Dolphins are members of the Odontoceti (toothed whales) which is a subset of cetaceans. Also include in this order are sperm whales and beaked whales and bottlenose whales.
Going to have to weigh in and agree with Kevin, not Powers. On an unrelated notes, anyone besides me bothered by the colorist missing a patch of the wall by the tail?
@Powers
re: “Dolphins are not a subset of whales. Dolphins and whales are two branches of the cetaceans. To say Dolphins are a subset of whales is like saying humans are a subset of monkeys just because they’re both primates.”
The order Cetacea is not divided into dolphins and whales, it is divided into two parvorders: baleen whales (Mysticeti) and toothed whales (Odontoceti), While Orcas are a members of the superfamily Delphinoidea (oceanic dolphins), that superfamily is classified under Odontoceti (the toothed whales).
Neither “whale” nor “dolphin” is a precise scientific term. You can rightly call an Orca a dolphin because it both belongs to a specific dolphin superfamily, as well as the general collection of genera that are less formally called dophins. But that doesn’t stop the orca from being considered a toothed whale.
The monkey/human/primate comparison is not analogous.
Let’s just hope members of the jury have not recently reread MOBY DICK, as I just did, and were thus exposed to Ishmael’s lengthy insistence that a whale is “really” a fish.
Yes, chemgal. Until you mentioned that missed patch of wall, I was trying to make it a part of the whale and thought it looked awfully strange.
Right. And I suppose dolphins are different from tuna, too.
I am not a lawyer, but by reading lots of Reddit and Quora and stuff, I’m pretty sure that, in an American courtroom, the term “killer whale” would be inadmissible, and, indeed, possibly grounds for a mistrial, or at least an appeal.
” I’m pretty sure that, in an American courtroom, the term ‘killer whale’ would be inadmissible, and, indeed, possibly grounds for a mistrial, or at least an appeal.”
That’s a pretty broad statement, and as such, overstates the case.
(For example, this proceeding might be the sentencing phase of a murder trial, which happens after the defendant has been proven to be the murderer. Referring to the defendant as a killer is not prejudicial if the defendant is already proven to be a killer AND the current proceeding is not investigating the accusation that the defendant is a killer.)
There are other scenarios in which identifying the photograph as a “killer whale” would not be prejudicial to the defendant at all. (Assuming, of course, that the unseen picture IS a killer whale. If it’s not, then saying it is would be perjury and a whole different can o’ worms to sort out.)
In a federal court the most relevant rule would be FRE 403, which allows a judge to exclude evidence under certain circumstances, including unfair prejudice. Some other rules might also have application… 404, perhaps. I’m not going to conduct a full survey, for a couple of reasons. 1, most murder trials are held in state courts, not federal. 2. The U.S. court system does not fully recognize the rights of cetaceans. (See Cetacean Community v. Bush.)
Presumably why it would be iffy if Buck Rogers ever captured his archenemy Killer Kane and brought him to trial. . .
I tried to look up 404 but I couldn’t find it.
MiB: lol !
I stand corrected on the official taxonomy of orcas, whales, and dolphins, but I believe colloquial usage comports with my assertion.
>>but I believe colloquial usage comports with my assertion.
Well there certainly are people who believe the fact that orcas are dolphins somehow disqualifies them from being dolphins. This distinction seems to have grown in popularity in the last couple decades.
However, among both marine biologists and lexicographers– at least for now– no such distinction exists.
The Oxford folks, for example define whale as “A very large marine mammal with a streamlined hairless body, a horizontal tail fin, and a blowhole on top of the head for breathing.” An orca (bigger than a beluga, narwhal, and rivaling a minke baleen whale in size) would certainly seem to qualify. Furthermore, they define a dolphin as a “small gregarious toothed whale that typically has a beaklike snout and a curved fin on the back.”
Akk… “the fact that orcas are dolphins somehow disqualifies them from being dolphins” should have been “the fact that orcas are dolphins somehow disqualifies them from being whales.”
Sounds like dolphins and whales need a Supreme Court decision like the famous one that decided a tomato is a vegetable and not a fruit.
I’m a cladist. It is not possible to construct a line of descent that includes both baleen whiles (e. g. blue whales) and toothed whales (e. g. sperm whales) but not dolphins. Therefore, if “whale” includes sperm and blue, it must include bottlenose.
Only if it clears its orbit and is massive enough to be round can it be considered a whale; otherwise it is a dwarf whale.
carlfink @ 26:
It’s interesting that you’ve shown that dolphins are whales.
People had been trying to show that killer whales were dolphins,
which is not the same.
And, thank you larK @ 27.
@ MiB – I wasn’t aware that the Supreme Court got involved. As I recall, it was the Reagan administration that decided that ketchup Is a vegetable (at least for the purpose of school lunches).
“I wasn’t aware that the Supreme Court got involved. As I recall, it was the Reagan administration that decided that ketchup Is a vegetable”
You’re talking about two different things.
The legal question of whether a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit is separate from the botanical question, because fruits and vegetables are taxed differently, and farmers and others in the food production chain would prefer to be taxed at the more favorable rate. Legally, tomatoes are vegetables because vegetables are the broader category.
As for the “ketchup is a vegetable” matter, the problem there is that A) we want children to eat good food, but B) they don’t. So if some legislator gets a law passed that food provided to students as a school lunch must be X% vegetables, what you’ll get is schoolchildren tossing x% of their lunches into the garbage. Now, ketchup is made from tomatoes, which are vegetables, but ketchup is also loaded with sugar… which legally is mostly vegetable, too. So school lunch programs were NOT legally required to buy a bunch of vegetables for children to throw away, and could count the ketchup they were actually eating towards their required vegetable content. In one of the fairly rare cases where I agreed with the Reagan administration, I think the ketchup they actually ate was more relevant to the question of whether their diet was “healthy” and “appropriate” than the quantity of the vegetables that the kids discarded uneaten.
There are number of food items that are generally considered to be vegetables, from a culinary standpoint, but are actually fruits. Cucumbers, squash, peppers, and eggplant are some examples.
And let’s not forget the distinction of berry or not:
I guess I might as well toss this one in…
“I guess I might as well toss this one in…”
When you do, I’ll know if I agree.
The Supreme Court decision that declared a tomato a vegetable was Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893).
Nomenclature differences turn up in all fields. To a pianist, the pedals on a grand piano are from left to right the una corda pedal, the sustaining pedal and the damper pedal. To a piano technician, they are from left to right the shift pedal, the sostenuto pedal and the sustaining pedal. To non-musicians, they are from left to right the soft pedal, the middle pedal and the loud pedal.
Blueberries aren’t even berries. It all has to do with which flower parts are included in the fruit.
Same problem with nuts.
This is all taxonation without representation anyway.
Every other source I’ve encountered says that blueberries are
true berries. I don’t consider Wiki to be authoritative, but
it’s handiest:
Arthur: Thanks for the LOL.(for the cartoon, not wikipedia ;) )
Bill: I completely disagree with whatever it is you tossed in.
Mark: Really, though, that decision isn’t a statement that a tomato is a fruit in general, in all contexts – not even for all U.S. laws. It’s that the tomato is a fruit for the purposes of a particular tariff. It might end up getting classified differently for a different statute.
Mark in Boston: “To non-musicians, they are from left to right the soft pedal, the middle pedal and the loud pedal.”
Surely to REALhardcore non-musicians (like myself), they are if anything “the left pedal, the middle pedal, and the right pedal.” That’s if one looks at a piano first to (a) remind oneself that it has pedals at all and (b) count how many of them there are.
Soft, loud? Let’s not overthink this.
“Mark: Really, though, that decision isn’t a statement that a tomato is a fruit in general, in all contexts – not even for all U.S. laws.”
It’s pretty close. Issue preclusion leaves a tiny bit of wiggle room, but not much.
“Every other source I’ve encountered says that blueberries are true berries.”
The Wikipedia source you referenced show blueberries as false, or epigynous berries.
Huh. I didn’t know it would display the article. I don’t think I’ve seen the software do that before, just images.
Okay, that’s weird: the graphic I tossed in was visible online immediately after I posted it, and is now gone.
Let’s try again…
“The Wikipedia source you referenced show blueberries as false, or epigynous berries.”
One reason I say that Wiki is not authoritative is that earlier
in that same article, it specifically says that blueberries are
“botanical berries”.
Dr. Johnson says: “Berry: Any small fruit, with many seeds or small stones. ‘She smote the ground, the which straight forth did yield A fruitful olive tree, with berries spread, That all the gods admir’d.’ Spencer, Muiopotmos.”
Well, that’s what I was getting at. There are various botanical classifications. A “true berry” has certain characteristics.
Re: CIDU Bill’s quote – have you seen the recipes for using strawberries instead of tomatoes in caprese salad? Apparently, with the vinegar, the taste isn’t all that different. I haven’t tried it, though. My parents do use clementines in their (green) salads instead of tomatoes in the winter, when the tomatoes are not so good.
And apparently “false berries” are ok in berry club, since both blueberries and bananas fit according to the comic…
For some reason, I recall that the tomatoes were a vegetable as they were/are used that way for an importation tariff so they should be taxed for the purpose they being used and not as their botanical designation.
Well, an apple is a fruit, and tomatoes are, notoriously, “poisonous love apples,” so logically they should be also.
” I recall that the tomatoes were a vegetable as they were/are used that way for an importation tariff”
That’s an oversimplification.
There was a definition of “fruit” in the statute, and a definition of “vegetable” in the statute, and those definitions were written such that anything that fit the definition of “fruit” would also fit the definition of “vegetable”. If the statute defined fruits and vegetables as mutually exclusive, then any given product would be one or the other, legally, depending on which definition fit, and that would be it… no litigation required.
Comics I Don't Understand 
The killer whale should answer, “Orca”, or it will prejudice
people against him.
The killer whale should wait silently, while his(?) lawyer objects to the question as stated as prejudicial.
New Yorker did it better:
https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/rendered/default/greeting-card/images/artworkimages/medium/1/a-killer-whale-is-in-court-jack-ziegler.jpg?&targetx=88&targety=25&imagewidth=524&imageheight=450&modelwidth=700&modelheight=500&backgroundcolor=ffffff&orientation=0
No, the lawyer is showing him photos of the murder victim. He’s trying to get him to say it is a blue whale so that he can argue that it was a racially motivated attack. Or that it is a sperm whale so he can say it is a sex crime. Pffft. Lawyers.
Here’s woozy’s link without the parameters, which should display the image immediately:
Well, nuts. Omitting the parameters messes up the zoom factor, and that clipped off the caption:
“Objection, Your Honor! Alleged killer whale!“
If the lawyer is showing him a picture of an orca, then he can just point out that it isn’t any kind of whale. Orcas are dolphins, not whales.
Dolphins are subset of whales, in the same way that, say, groundhogs are a type of squirrel.
Eventually, the jury was hung, and Willy went free.
Dolphins are not a subset of whales. Dolphins and whales are two branches of the cetaceans. To say Dolphins are a subset of whales is like saying humans are a subset of monkeys just because they’re both primates.
Dolphins are members of the Odontoceti (toothed whales) which is a subset of cetaceans. Also include in this order are sperm whales and beaked whales and bottlenose whales.
Going to have to weigh in and agree with Kevin, not Powers. On an unrelated notes, anyone besides me bothered by the colorist missing a patch of the wall by the tail?
@Powers
re: “Dolphins are not a subset of whales. Dolphins and whales are two branches of the cetaceans. To say Dolphins are a subset of whales is like saying humans are a subset of monkeys just because they’re both primates.”
The order Cetacea is not divided into dolphins and whales, it is divided into two parvorders: baleen whales (Mysticeti) and toothed whales (Odontoceti), While Orcas are a members of the superfamily Delphinoidea (oceanic dolphins), that superfamily is classified under Odontoceti (the toothed whales).
Neither “whale” nor “dolphin” is a precise scientific term. You can rightly call an Orca a dolphin because it both belongs to a specific dolphin superfamily, as well as the general collection of genera that are less formally called dophins. But that doesn’t stop the orca from being considered a toothed whale.
The monkey/human/primate comparison is not analogous.
Let’s just hope members of the jury have not recently reread MOBY DICK, as I just did, and were thus exposed to Ishmael’s lengthy insistence that a whale is “really” a fish.
Yes, chemgal. Until you mentioned that missed patch of wall, I was trying to make it a part of the whale and thought it looked awfully strange.
Right. And I suppose dolphins are different from tuna, too.
I am not a lawyer, but by reading lots of Reddit and Quora and stuff, I’m pretty sure that, in an American courtroom, the term “killer whale” would be inadmissible, and, indeed, possibly grounds for a mistrial, or at least an appeal.
” I’m pretty sure that, in an American courtroom, the term ‘killer whale’ would be inadmissible, and, indeed, possibly grounds for a mistrial, or at least an appeal.”
That’s a pretty broad statement, and as such, overstates the case.
(For example, this proceeding might be the sentencing phase of a murder trial, which happens after the defendant has been proven to be the murderer. Referring to the defendant as a killer is not prejudicial if the defendant is already proven to be a killer AND the current proceeding is not investigating the accusation that the defendant is a killer.)
There are other scenarios in which identifying the photograph as a “killer whale” would not be prejudicial to the defendant at all. (Assuming, of course, that the unseen picture IS a killer whale. If it’s not, then saying it is would be perjury and a whole different can o’ worms to sort out.)
In a federal court the most relevant rule would be FRE 403, which allows a judge to exclude evidence under certain circumstances, including unfair prejudice. Some other rules might also have application… 404, perhaps. I’m not going to conduct a full survey, for a couple of reasons. 1, most murder trials are held in state courts, not federal. 2. The U.S. court system does not fully recognize the rights of cetaceans. (See Cetacean Community v. Bush.)
Presumably why it would be iffy if Buck Rogers ever captured his archenemy Killer Kane and brought him to trial. . .
I tried to look up 404 but I couldn’t find it.
MiB: lol !
I stand corrected on the official taxonomy of orcas, whales, and dolphins, but I believe colloquial usage comports with my assertion.
>>but I believe colloquial usage comports with my assertion.
Well there certainly are people who believe the fact that orcas are dolphins somehow disqualifies them from being dolphins. This distinction seems to have grown in popularity in the last couple decades.
However, among both marine biologists and lexicographers– at least for now– no such distinction exists.
The Oxford folks, for example define whale as “A very large marine mammal with a streamlined hairless body, a horizontal tail fin, and a blowhole on top of the head for breathing.” An orca (bigger than a beluga, narwhal, and rivaling a minke baleen whale in size) would certainly seem to qualify. Furthermore, they define a dolphin as a “small gregarious toothed whale that typically has a beaklike snout and a curved fin on the back.”
Akk… “the fact that orcas are dolphins somehow disqualifies them from being dolphins” should have been “the fact that orcas are dolphins somehow disqualifies them from being whales.”
Sounds like dolphins and whales need a Supreme Court decision like the famous one that decided a tomato is a vegetable and not a fruit.
I’m a cladist. It is not possible to construct a line of descent that includes both baleen whiles (e. g. blue whales) and toothed whales (e. g. sperm whales) but not dolphins. Therefore, if “whale” includes sperm and blue, it must include bottlenose.
Only if it clears its orbit and is massive enough to be round can it be considered a whale; otherwise it is a dwarf whale.
carlfink @ 26:
It’s interesting that you’ve shown that dolphins are whales.
People had been trying to show that killer whales were dolphins,
which is not the same.
And, thank you larK @ 27.
@ MiB – I wasn’t aware that the Supreme Court got involved. As I recall, it was the Reagan administration that decided that ketchup Is a vegetable (at least for the purpose of school lunches).
“I wasn’t aware that the Supreme Court got involved. As I recall, it was the Reagan administration that decided that ketchup Is a vegetable”
You’re talking about two different things.
The legal question of whether a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit is separate from the botanical question, because fruits and vegetables are taxed differently, and farmers and others in the food production chain would prefer to be taxed at the more favorable rate. Legally, tomatoes are vegetables because vegetables are the broader category.
As for the “ketchup is a vegetable” matter, the problem there is that A) we want children to eat good food, but B) they don’t. So if some legislator gets a law passed that food provided to students as a school lunch must be X% vegetables, what you’ll get is schoolchildren tossing x% of their lunches into the garbage. Now, ketchup is made from tomatoes, which are vegetables, but ketchup is also loaded with sugar… which legally is mostly vegetable, too. So school lunch programs were NOT legally required to buy a bunch of vegetables for children to throw away, and could count the ketchup they were actually eating towards their required vegetable content. In one of the fairly rare cases where I agreed with the Reagan administration, I think the ketchup they actually ate was more relevant to the question of whether their diet was “healthy” and “appropriate” than the quantity of the vegetables that the kids discarded uneaten.
There are number of food items that are generally considered to be vegetables, from a culinary standpoint, but are actually fruits. Cucumbers, squash, peppers, and eggplant are some examples.
And let’s not forget the distinction of berry or not:
I guess I might as well toss this one in…
“I guess I might as well toss this one in…”
When you do, I’ll know if I agree.
The Supreme Court decision that declared a tomato a vegetable was Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893).
Nomenclature differences turn up in all fields. To a pianist, the pedals on a grand piano are from left to right the una corda pedal, the sustaining pedal and the damper pedal. To a piano technician, they are from left to right the shift pedal, the sostenuto pedal and the sustaining pedal. To non-musicians, they are from left to right the soft pedal, the middle pedal and the loud pedal.
Blueberries aren’t even berries. It all has to do with which flower parts are included in the fruit.
Same problem with nuts.
This is all taxonation without representation anyway.
Every other source I’ve encountered says that blueberries are
true berries. I don’t consider Wiki to be authoritative, but
it’s handiest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_(botany)
Arthur: Thanks for the LOL.(for the cartoon, not wikipedia ;) )
Bill: I completely disagree with whatever it is you tossed in.
Mark: Really, though, that decision isn’t a statement that a tomato is a fruit in general, in all contexts – not even for all U.S. laws. It’s that the tomato is a fruit for the purposes of a particular tariff. It might end up getting classified differently for a different statute.
Mark in Boston: “To non-musicians, they are from left to right the soft pedal, the middle pedal and the loud pedal.”
Surely to REALhardcore non-musicians (like myself), they are if anything “the left pedal, the middle pedal, and the right pedal.” That’s if one looks at a piano first to (a) remind oneself that it has pedals at all and (b) count how many of them there are.
Soft, loud? Let’s not overthink this.
“Mark: Really, though, that decision isn’t a statement that a tomato is a fruit in general, in all contexts – not even for all U.S. laws.”
It’s pretty close. Issue preclusion leaves a tiny bit of wiggle room, but not much.
“Every other source I’ve encountered says that blueberries are true berries.”
The Wikipedia source you referenced show blueberries as false, or epigynous berries.
Similar references:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Berry
Huh. I didn’t know it would display the article. I don’t think I’ve seen the software do that before, just images.
Okay, that’s weird: the graphic I tossed in was visible online immediately after I posted it, and is now gone.
Let’s try again…
“The Wikipedia source you referenced show blueberries as false, or epigynous berries.”
One reason I say that Wiki is not authoritative is that earlier
in that same article, it specifically says that blueberries are
“botanical berries”.
Dr. Johnson says: “Berry: Any small fruit, with many seeds or small stones. ‘She smote the ground, the which straight forth did yield A fruitful olive tree, with berries spread, That all the gods admir’d.’ Spencer, Muiopotmos.”
Well, that’s what I was getting at. There are various botanical classifications. A “true berry” has certain characteristics.
Re: CIDU Bill’s quote – have you seen the recipes for using strawberries instead of tomatoes in caprese salad? Apparently, with the vinegar, the taste isn’t all that different. I haven’t tried it, though. My parents do use clementines in their (green) salads instead of tomatoes in the winter, when the tomatoes are not so good.
And apparently “false berries” are ok in berry club, since both blueberries and bananas fit according to the comic…
For some reason, I recall that the tomatoes were a vegetable as they were/are used that way for an importation tariff so they should be taxed for the purpose they being used and not as their botanical designation.
Well, an apple is a fruit, and tomatoes are, notoriously, “poisonous love apples,” so logically they should be also.
” I recall that the tomatoes were a vegetable as they were/are used that way for an importation tariff”
That’s an oversimplification.
There was a definition of “fruit” in the statute, and a definition of “vegetable” in the statute, and those definitions were written such that anything that fit the definition of “fruit” would also fit the definition of “vegetable”. If the statute defined fruits and vegetables as mutually exclusive, then any given product would be one or the other, legally, depending on which definition fit, and that would be it… no litigation required.