Lecture 36, As-Salaam-Alaikum. Welcome to the virtual university's course on business and technical communication. In the previous lecture, we were looking at paragraphs and reviewing how we could improve our writing by improving our paragraphs. In this lecture, we will continue reviewing the language and look at sentences. We will look at how to improve sentences and what the commonly found problems and sentences are which include the use of stacked modifiers and noun. We will also look at wordiness which is caused by the incorrect use of passive voice or active voice. Wordiness is also caused by nominalization, unnecessary repetition and the use of unnecessary words and phrases. We will then look at overloaded sentences and how you can correct those and sentence fragments and what to do so that your writing does not have fragmented sentences. We will also look at problems with the use of comma splice, fused sentences and stringy sentences and we will look at agreement between subjects and verbs. We will look at using two or more nouns and how to use a pronoun with that. We will look at sentences beginning with there. We will look at indefinite pronouns, collective nouns and quantifiers and how all of these if used incorrectly can cause problems. We will also look at pronoun antecedent agreement and how to use that correctly so that our writing does not have commonly found problems. Let us have a look at stacked modifiers and nouns. What do we mean when we talk of modifiers and stacked modifiers and how they can cause problems in our sentences? You need to avoid using long strings of modifiers or nouns. When we talk of modifiers we mean those words which are added to nouns to add meaning to them. These stacked modifiers if you are stacking more than one modifier to a noun or to a word to add meaning to it they can be hard to read and sometimes they lead to ambiguity. If you need to add words then add just a few words to make the relationships between nouns clear to the readers. If you have used modifiers with your alphas then try to use any other alphas as well as prepositions or conjunctions so that the relationship between nouns can be clear to the readers. We will look at some examples and then we will get to know more about them. A weak version of a sentence that we are going to look at is previous work has shown that a purified pro-oxidant vitamin E-deficient fish oil diet protects mice against malaria parasites. Now in this it is not clear that what are the things that protect mice from malaria parasites. Purified pro-oxidant, vitamin E, fish oil or all these things are not clear to the readers. The improved version would be something like previous work has shown that feeding a pro-oxidant diet containing fish oil but devoid of vitamin E protects mice against malaria parasites. Now look at the weak version and the improved version is talking that purified fish oil diet protects mice against malaria parasites and the remaining information is modifiers. Pro-oxidant, vitamin E-deficient modifiers but their relationship is not clear that what is their relationship with fish oil and what is their relationship with the meaning of the sentence. In the improved version that is what we have said but we have said that a pro-oxidant diet containing fish oil but devoid of vitamin E. We have explained these things clearly. Modifiers instead of putting them in a line, instead of stacking them with each other, we have given them conjunctions, prepositions so that their relationship with each other and their main noun which is fish oil can be cleared with it. Another example of such stacked modifiers is we have analyzed low energy, interplanetary charged, sun sourced particle flux time series. Now as you can see there are a lot of modifiers in this example which are stacked with each other and which connect with each other. There is no relationship between them. Low energy, interplanetary charged, sun sourced, particle flux time series I cannot understand what modifiers are and what is the noun. What is the main object ? We have analyzed the time series of fluxes of low energy, interplanetary charged particle whose ultimate origin is the sun. Now as you can see this becomes much more clear instead of saying sun sourced we are talking about the time series of fluxes of low energy, interplanetary charged particles and then we are talking about their origin. We are saying that their origin is the sun instead of saying sun sourced so it becomes much more clear as to what is being talked about. Another similar example of stacked modifiers is the system uses a high peak power single frequency low divergent light beam produced by pulse lasers. Now as you can see there is no clear the modification of beam is difficult to sort out. We are talking about a beam basically the system uses a beam and then all the other information is what type of beam but it is not very clear. A clearer version would be the system uses pulse lasers that operate under high peak power to produce a single frequency light beam with low divergence. Now introducing these prepositions like with introducing words like that saying to produce etc add more meaning to the sentence and they actually show the connections between the modifiers and the noun. Now let us have a look at wordiness what do we mean when we talk of wordiness. Basically you should say what you have to say in as few words as possible without sacrificing clarity or omitting vital information. Whatever it is you have to say try to use the minimum amount of words but make sure that the meaning comes across properly. Change it or use as few words as possible so that it is not completely clear but an expert writer is the one who can convey maximum information in minimum words without confusing the reader as well. Conciseness is desirable in all writing but specially so in technical writing because we have talked as we have talked about earlier when you are writing for a technical purpose or for business your readers will not have time to spend so much time on trying to figure out what you are saying. They want everything concisely they want everything that things that they can digest within a glance they are not reading for leisure so they will not want to waste a lot of time in trying to figure out what you are saying. Excessive use of the passive voice excessive nominalization unnecessary repetition and unnecessary words and phrases are some common causes of wordy writing and we are going to have a look at these in a minute. Now you need to decide when to use the passive voice and when to use the active voice. You will use the active voice whenever the passive voice is not appropriate. Active verbs make for concise prose sentences with passive verbs use more words. So when you are aiming for conciseness try to go for the active voice because if you are using the passive voice you will need to use more words. Moreover passive verbs deemphasize or even eliminate the mention of the performer of the action that is conveyed by the verb. Every verb is conveying an action and every action is obviously performed by somebody. Let us have a look at an example which will clarify this for you. A weak version of a sentence would be in this project three psychological experiments were performed by the authors so that the technical problems for the oralization of a sound field could be clarified. An improved version is in this project the authors performed three psychological experiments to clarify the technical problems for the oralization of a sound field. In the second part of the improved version you are saying clearly the authors performed to clarify the verbs are in active voice whereas in the earlier one the verbs were in the passive voice. Experiments were performed so that the oralization of a sound field could be clarified. So in this you are using more words and your sentence is getting longer and the clarity is getting reduced. Where possible use verb forms instead of noun forms. When we change a verb into noun and make it a noun form it is called an excessive or unnecessary nominalization turning verbs into nouns can make your writing wordy because it requires a noun and a verb instead of just the verb. Let's have a look at some examples which will clarify this point further. A weak version with nominalization is a winglet may cause the introduction of a discontinuity in the lift distribution curve. The introduction of a winglet may cause the introduction of a discontinuity in the lift distribution curve. Now here the introduction of nounization is used for three words. An improved version would be winglet may introduce a discontinuity in the lift distribution curve. When we say the verb directly winglet may introduce plus A clubs ka saati hamne jo hamne baat 3, 4 alphaz me gati cause the introduction of wo hamne A clubs me gati. Isi tara regeneration of the resin bed is achieved by a calcium chloride solution. Now, note that the main action of the centers is located in the nominal subject whereas, the improved version would be the resin bed is regenerated with a calcium chloride solution. Here the main action of the verb of the sentence is now in the verb is regenerated. Also, try to avoid unnecessary repetition. One of the most common types of unnecessary repetition involves modifiers that repeat information given in the word modify. In the on your screen now, we will discuss a few show you a few examples and discuss some examples of recognizing and eliminating repetition. Let us have a look at this first example where the writer says currently aircraft must be kept a minimum of at least 3 miles apart in the horizontal plane. Ab deke ki isme kya cheez hai jo repeat ho rahi hai. Minimum of at least 3 miles. Jab aapne minimum kya diya to aapko at least ke zeroat nahi hai. Ye aapne at least kya diya to aapko minimum ke zeroat nahi hai. Ye doonon cheez hai ek hi meaning de rahi hai. The improved version would be currently aircraft must be kept a minimum of 3 miles apart in the horizontal plane. So, here by taking out of at least we are making the sentence more concise and much more effective. Another weak example would be in 1928, Alexander Fleming discovered for the first time that penicillin mould could kill Strophilococcus bacteria in petri dishes. Fleming named the lethal antibacterial chemicals secreted by the deadly penicillin mould dubbing it penicillin. Now, there is a lot of repetition and we are going to see how this can be improved. I would like you to look at the sentence first to see if you can figure out the areas which are being repeated. Now, let us quickly have a look at the improved version. In 1928 Alexander Fleming discovered that penicillin mould could kill Strophilococcus bacteria in petri dishes. He dubbed the lethal antibacterial chemicals secreted by the mould penicillin. Now, when he dubbed it that means that he named it. So, as in the previous sentence Fleming named the lethal antibacterial and then we said dubbing it penicillin is repetition. Similarly, in the first part of the sentence, in 1928 Alexander Fleming discovered that penicillin could do this. We do not need to say discovered for the first time. Because when there is a discovery, it is the first time. After that, if you see something, if you look at it again, it is not for the first time or it is not a discovery. So, by saying discovery you are the verb discovered shows that it was something that was looked at for the first time. So, you do not need to say for the first time. Similarly, another sentence would be ability to separate from water is an essential prerequisite for a hydraulic oil to be used in plant systems where contamination of the hydraulic system by water is likely to form sludge emulsions of oil and water. Now, there is so much repetition of phrases and terms in the sentence that it is not clear what the writer wants to say. A better version would be simply saying plants with hydraulic systems routinely exposed to water should use hydraulic oils that are immiscible with water. Now, it has the same meaning, it is much more concise, it is much easier for the reader to pick out the meaning. Unnecessary words and phrases also make your sentences much longer, much worthier, much more difficult to understand. You need to make sure that each word and phrase in your sentence contributes to meaning and clarity. If there are any words, if there are any phrases in your sentence that are redundant, look out for them. Try to avoid the commonly used constructions of there is or there are and it is, there is there are or it is. To use your sentences, your sentences are confusing, their clarity is less. So, try to use them directly. Now, when we look at the examples, this will be more clear for you. Instead of saying it is expected that by the year 2000, the Library of Congress will have digitized 5 million books and images. It would be better to say by the year 2000, the Library of Congress expects to have digitized 5 million books and images. Now, look at it is expected that instead of saying it is expected that the Library of Congress expects to have digitized 5 million books and images. Similarly, another weak sentence would be, there is an electronic Beowulf project at the British Library that is preserving the original manuscript of the 11th century Anglo-Saxon epic. This is the improved version and electronic Beowulf project at the British Library is preserving the original manuscript of the 11th century Anglo-Saxon epic. In this sentence also, we removed the there is and instead of preserving that, we just put this preserving and improved the sentence. Similarly, let us have a look at another example where a question is being asked. Are the detection systems and secondary containment periodically performance testable to verify operability in the event that they are called upon to function? Let us have a look at the improved version of this same question to see how the question becomes clearer. Can the detection systems and secondary containment be performance tested periodically? It is a simple question. Can these systems and secondary containment be performance tested periodically over different periods? Whereas, this was said in the first sentence in such a long way because the ideas were repeating a lot. Also, avoid overloaded sentences. Avoid sentences that contain more information than the reader can easily follow. If there is a lot of information in a sentence, then the reader will not get time to digest it. They will not understand what you are saying. So, try to have as much information in your sentence as the reader can absorb. Divide your sentences. If your sentences are long, then divide them into more manageable pieces that can be easily grasped. Do not try to cram all your information in one sentence. It is perfectly alright to break down long sentences into shorter ones and also to give variety to your sentences as well. We have talked about different types of sentences earlier and we have talked about how seven different ways of writing sentences can combine, can be used to make 46 different types of sentences if you combine the basic seven types. So, try to give variety. Do not try to just have very long sentences or do not fall into the trap of having very, very short sentences, very simple sentences. Give your sentences some variety and make them manageable. Let us have a look at a weak sentence where there is too much information, the sentence is overloaded. Because researchers interested in speech synthesis and automatic recognition need to find rules that improve intelligibility of speech, they need to study the psychological determinants more closely than before. They can solve what has become a complex set of questions. You did not understand what the writer has said because there is so much information given that what researchers have to do, what they are interested in, that you will have to study it twice or three times and then you will understand its main point. Let us have a look at the improved version. Researchers interested in speech synthesis and automatic recognition need to find rules that improve intelligibility of speech. Here, one sentence is over. We found out what researchers interested in this should do. And then the next sentence starts by saying consequently they need to study the psychological determinants more closely before they can solve what has become a complex set of questions. Now, you can see that there is not much difference in these two examples. The first one had only one long sentence and the second one was divided into two sentences. Consequently, it was added to show the connection, to show that it is something that will happen as a consequence of what happened before. And it just makes the relationships much clearer. It makes it easier for you to understand what the writer is saying. Another example would be in response to the leak history of the pipe made of 304L stainless steel, a work request IJ117 was prepared by Plant Maintenance in August of 1989. It took place approximately 55 of the HLD304L pipe, the entire segment running from the cells area to the point in the drainage system that turns south to exit the building with pipe made of a different material, Iconel 600 in brackets C figure N. Now, a completely incomprehensible sentence. Plant Maintenance is not understanding what they are trying to say, what is happening, they are just trying to understand that there are a lot of pipes, numbers, and some lengths. But they are not understanding the meaning. Now, let's have a look at the improved version. Plant Maintenance responded to the leak history of the stainless steel pipe. In brackets, they gave the name of the pipe, a number 304L with a work request in August of 1989 to replace a 55 foot section with Iconel 600 pipe, full stop. Next sentence starts with this section made up of the entire pipe segment running from the cells area to a point where the drainage system turns south to exit the building C figure N. Now, this makes the meaning much clear. The whole long sentence is divided into two sentences. The references to the pipe numbers are given in brackets rather than as part of the whole sentence and it becomes much more easy for the reader to comprehend what the writer is saying. Another common problem with sentences is the use of sentence fragments. A sentence fragment is missing a subject, a verb, or both. But it is punctuated as if there were a complete sentence. A sentence fragment is either subject missing or verb missing or maybe sometimes both are missing. But it is punctuated as if there were a complete sentence. As we have discussed in the last lecture, a complete sentence is a subject or verb missing. It is a sentence with two alphas. For example, Ben eats or Ben sleeps or Ben is sleeping. There is a subject and a verb missing. If there is a sentence with no subject or verb missing, a complete sentence is not a fragment. So, if there is a missing verb or a missing noun or both, then the sentence is not complete. Especially if it is punctuated as if it were a complete sentence, then you need to look out for it. We are going to have a look at some examples where we will see such sentences which do not make sense and we will also correct them. It is unacceptable to say by virtue of their prevalence alone, full stop. And then the next sentence being, it is clear that mood disorders do not necessarily breed genius. Now, the part by virtue of their prevalence alone which is made to look like a sentence because it has a full stop. It contains neither a subject nor a verb. You do not know what is being talked about and there is no action being performed either. So, it is clear that it is not a sentence even though it looks like a sentence because it starts with a capital letter and ends with a full stop. An improved version would be that you repair the sentence fragment by adding the missing element, either the subject or the verb or both. Or you can merge the fragment with the clause that does contain a subject and a verb. Either you improve this fragment and make a complete sentence. Add the subject or verb in it. Or make it a part of a sentence which has a complete sentence. For example, there is a next sentence. Let us have a look at the improved versions. By saying, by virtue of their prevalence alone, comma, it is clear that mood disorders do not necessarily breed genius. Here, by virtue of their prevalence alone, we have made this fragment a part of a second sentence by adding comma. So, this is not a fragment. The next sentence has a dependent clause. Similarly, if you get fragments in your writing, you will feel that the things you consider as sentences are not complete, because they do not have a subject or a verb. But if you are just looking at the sentences, then you can make them a dependent clause. You can link them with any other sentence. Or you can see them and add the subject or verb in it and make them a complete sentence. Another common problem with sentences is the use of comma splice. A comma splice is when two independent clauses are linked with just a comma. We saw in the last lecture that what are independent clauses? And if you join two independent clauses with just one comma, then it is a comma splice. This is a common error in writing and this needs to be remedied. You can correct a comma splice in four ways. First, the first way of correcting a comma splice is that you separate the independent clauses into two separate sentences and punctuate both sentences with a period or a full stop. Basically, this means that if you have two independent clauses and you have got a comma between them, then you need to look out either what you can do is you can use those two independent clauses as two separate sentences. You can put a full stop or period between them so that they become independent sentences but two independent clauses are not running along with each other. Or you can replace the comma with a semicolon or with a semicolon and a conjunctive adverb such as however or furthermore. The conjunctive adverb however furthermore they are normally followed by a comma. So, first of all we talked about that you can do this. You have got two independent clauses separated from the comma. You can remove the comma and put a full stop. The second thing you can do is you can leave the comma and put a conjunctive adverb such as however or furthermore you can put a comma and start the next independent clause. The third way is that you will replace the comma with a comma and a coordinating conjunction. You will put a coordinating conjunction with that comma and then start the next clause. For example, you will put a comma and start the next independent clause. Or another way of remedying it could be that you will make one of the clauses into a subordinate clause or a dependent clause. For example, we saw in the first fragments that we made one clause into a subordinate clause. Similarly, you cannot put two independent clauses together with the comma. You can make one clause independent and make one clause dependent. Then you can put a comma and join them. Let's have a look at some examples which will clarify these points. An unacceptable pair of independent clauses would be in 1931 Oppenheimer attempted to find an equation for the photon that would be an analog to Dirac's equation for the electron comma he failed in this effort. As you can see, both the parts and sentences are independent clauses. In 1931 Oppenheimer attempted to find an equation to the photon that would be an analog to Dirac's equation for the electron. This in itself is an independent clause. And then the second independent clause is he failed in this effort. Now, we have separated them with the comma. This is incorrect. This is a comma splice. The acceptable version would be that instead of the comma, we put either, we put a full stop or a period and start the next independent clause with the capital letter. Both of them make different sentences. We have not changed the words. We have not added any words. We have just put a full stop instead of the comma. And then, because it is obvious, we have always put a capital letter after the next written full stop. That is why we have put a capital H. Another way of improving this would be simply that you put after electron after the first independent clause you put a semicolon. In 1931, Oppenheimer attempted to find an equation for the photon that would be an analog to Dirac's equation for the electron. Semicolon. Then, he failed in this effort. Full stop. Then, you did not link the capital H because when you start after semicolon, you will not put a capital letter. But, you linked these two independent clauses with semicolon. Or, you can also say after the electron, you put a semicolon. And then, however, comma, he failed in this effort. Put a conjunctive adverb. After that, you put a comma. And then, you complete the sentence. Another version would be include the comma and then with the comma add but an analog to Dirac's equation for the electron, comma, but he failed in this effort. You can also subordinate this clause in such a way that you subordinate the first part. He failed in this effort which is your main independent clause. And the first part which is your dependent clause by using the word although. You can say although in 1931, Oppenheimer attempted to find an equation for the photon that would be an analog to Dirac's equation for the electron, comma, he failed in this effort. Now, another after comma splice, another common problem is fused sentences. This is similar to comma splice. Basically, this means that two independent clauses run together without a conjunction or punctuation between them. In comma splice, we saw that there were two independent clauses and they had comma whereas, something else should have happened. In fused sentences, there are two independent clauses and there will be no punctuation. There will be no comma. And you will not know where one idea is ending and where the other is starting. So, this is basically when two independent clauses run together without a conjunction or punctuation between them. And you should not allow this to happen in your writing at all. This error produces a fused sentence. And to correct fused sentences, you will use the same strategies as we talked about in when we were talking about comma splice. Let us have a look at some examples. It would be unacceptable to say remote control for a car alarm works better held up at arms length than at waist level, but works best when held under the chin. Physicists suggest that the body may be acting as an extension of the antenna. Now, in this, there are two independent clauses. The first was talking about the remote control held at arms length, then at waist length, but works best when held under the chin. And the second is the independent clause where the physicists suggest that the body may act as an extension of the antenna. But these two independent clauses are fused together as one sentence and there is no punctuation in between to show any kind of link to show any break. The acceptable version would be a remote control for a car alarm works better held up at arms length than at waist level, but works best when held under the chin. Semicolon. Physicists suggest that the body may be acting as an extension of the antenna. We have included only one semicolon, but the two independent clauses are fused together as one sentence and they are fused together. Another unacceptable example would be lenticular clouds frequently form one above the other like a stack of pancakes at a distance they may resemble a fleet of hovering spacecraft. Again, as you saw in this in these few sentences there are two independent clauses and they are fused together they are merged together without any punctuation. You don't understand where to pause what is the connection Look at this and think where the break will come. As you can see this sentence can simply be made correct by adding a semicolon after pancakes to show the break between the two independent clauses. Another problem is stringy sentences. You need to avoid stringing several clauses and it will be easier to read and understand if they were broken up into separate clauses. Try not to string many clauses because if you separate them they will be understood easily. The following example makes the point of how incoherent the language becomes with the use of stringy sentences. This example shows or this example says we must accept the facts and enormous energy requirements and not to forget that attempts to economize on safety provisions in such hazardous industries result in increased risks and these increased risks may result in terrible tragedy even in disasters whose consequences exceed national boundaries although it is certainly true that a nuclear power station working safely without accident is ecologically one of the cleanest of all industrial plants. As you can see there are a lot of different ideas a lot of separate clauses that are incomplete and they have been strung together. The improved version would be we must accept the facts and our enormous energy requirements but it is also important not to forget that attempts to economize on safety provisions in such hazardous industries result in increased risk full stop and these increased risks may result in terrible tragedy even in disasters whose consequences exceed national boundaries certainly true however that a nuclear power station working safely without accident is ecologically one of the cleanest of all industrial plants the same message but said in three sentences rather than one long stringy sentence. Now coming to something different up till now we had been talking about how sentences were either stringy or fused or put together with the commerce plies and how that created problems. Let's have a look at agreement. Agreement between subjects and verbs and between pronouns and their antecedents is important for paragraph coherence as well as for style and grammar when editing a document check for agreement paying close attention to subjects verbs and pronouns you have to see that your subjects verbs and pronouns are agreeing or not that your pronoun or your pronoun is indicating something else or your pronoun's antecedent about which the pronoun is mentioning should not be cleared. Let's have a look at some examples and the concept will become clearer for you. But first let's see what you need to do to make sure that your sentence has agreement you need to make sure that your subject agrees with your verb subject verb agreement you also need to make sure that your pronouns agree in gender and number with their antecedents what whatever pronoun you are using and for whatever you are using the pronoun you are using the same gender if you are talking about a female then the pronoun is feminine masculine for male your pronoun is masculine its pronoun is masculine too the antecedents match in gender and also in number if your antecedent is plural then your pronoun has to be plural as well you also need to make sure that the form of your pronoun is appropriate for how you are using the pronoun in the sentence the pronoun case and for the sake of clarity make sure that your pronouns are appropriate to their antecedent we call this pronoun reference the antecedent of the pronouns are written near to them so that they can understand what they are talking about your verb must agree with your subject in number and person if your subject is singular your verb must be singular if your subject is plural your verb must be plural if your subject is in the first person your verb must be in the first person if your subject is in the second person or third person your verb must agree for example for more than a century researchers has known that exposure to high pressure can injure or kill living organisms now here researchers and has do not agree the acceptable form would be for more than a century researchers have known that exposure to high pressure can injure or kill in general of subject verb agreement as requiring 1s per clause for every clause you have to put 1s with your verb either or put it with your subject so either on the verb or on the subject but never on both will it not come with both or will it come with subject or verb of course this rule applies only with present tense verbs and those that do not have irregular plural forms the irregular plural forms are different do not be led astray by modifying phrases that separate the subject and the verb if you are not sure about the subject verb agreement test the sentence by leaving out the modifiers we had talked about many modifiers before so do not get confused that you are not you are so confused that you are putting s with the modifier or you are putting s with the noun or verb if you are not sure, then remove the modifier and read the sentence to see if it looks good or not an unacceptable example would be a mixture of materials were used to withstand high temperatures the subject here is mixture not materials so the verb should agree it would be acceptable to say to withstand high temperatures also when you are using two or more nouns if your subject contains two or more nouns you need to pay special attention to subject verb agreement if the nouns are connected by the co-ordinating conjunction and use a plural verb although accidents and congestion results from driving etc instead of this you will say although accidents and congestion also instead of saying your adviser or your course instructor are required to sign the form you will say your adviser is required to sign the form unacceptable form would be both advisor and your course instructor is required to sign the form if you say Either your course instructor or three fellow students who know your ability is required to sign the form, then this is wrong. The better form would be either your course instructor or three fellow students who know your ability are required to sign the form. Because you are talking about three fellow students later, then your verb will be plural.  Instead of saying either three fellow students who know your ability or your course instructor are required to sign the form, you will agree with your course instructor. You will say either three fellow students who know your ability or your course instructor is required to sign the form. Whatever your subject will be later, your verb will agree with it. In this lecture, we looked at commonly found language problems in sentences. We looked at stacked modifiers and nouns, wordiness, overloaded sentences, sentence fragments, comma splice, few sentences, stringy sentences and we looked at agreement. In the next lecture, we will continue reviewing language and we will continue looking at sentences. Until then, Allah Hafiz.


My name, first of all, is Doug Sheppin, last name is spelled S-C-H-E-P-M-A-N. And I'm a spokesperson for the Denver Police Department. So kind of the rundown of what happened here this evening around 4.45 this afternoon. Officers were in the area attempting to locate a male suspect related to aggravated robbery cases and multiple jurisdictions both in and out of state. That party was believed to be armed and dangerous at the time. The suspect was in a vehicle traveling westbound on Colfax, approached the traffic light here at Quebec. Officers attempted a traffic stop. At that time, the suspect who is an adult male, attempted to kind of ram his way between a couple of cars that were stopped. Officers observed the suspect brandished a firearm. And three of our officers did discharge their weapons, striking that suspect who was pronounced deceased here on the scene. There was a adult female passenger that was in the suspect vehicle. She was transported for evaluation of injuries. It's unclear at this time if those injuries are gunshot related. We also had one officer transported for evaluation of injuries as well, but not gunshot related. So we currently have both directions of Colfax closed between Quebec and Wind Streets. We suspect that closure will remain in place for several hours as investigators process the scene here. The Office of the Medical Examiner will be the agency that releases the identity of the deceased suspect. And in situations where we have an officer involved shooting, we have an established protocol that that investigation includes investigators from the Denver Police Department, the Aurora Police Department, the Denver DA's office, as well as the Denver Office of the Independent Monitor. Do you have any questions? A police officer, what are his or her tools? I'm not clear what the injuries are that he was transported for evaluation. But to my knowledge, it's not any kind of gunshot related injury. Did the suspects shoot at officers? That's part of what will be the investigation as it goes on. The officers did observe the suspect's brandish of firearm, and that's when they discharged their weapons. Did we see bullet holes in the police car and the windshield? I did not observe that, I'm sorry. Well, can you tell us about how many states this gentleman was wanted in or were they under surveillance or did you just have to run across? Right, so I don't have the details as far as what states and how many cases this party is one associated in association with. But these are cases that are aggravated bank robberies and multiple jurisdictions both here in Colorado and out of state. Were federal authorities involved then? I'm sorry? Federal authorities involved as well since they were bank robberies? The Safe Streets Task Force was involved in trying to locate this individual. And was there indeed a weapon in the car that the suspect was in? The officers did observe the suspect's brandish of firearm. And there was one found after the shooting? They're still processing the scene at this time, but the officers did observe a firearm being brandished by that suspect when they discharged the weapons. Where was the alleged robbery taking place? Yeah, and again, I don't have the specifics on the robberies and whether, when they occurred and exactly where they occurred, but I'm told. He was wanted in relation to aggravated bank robberies and multiple jurisdictions. The gender of the officer who was slightly injured is, I don't know how you characterize it. I don't know the genders of the, we had three officers who were involved here who discharged their weapons. I don't know their genders and don't have their names to release at this time. How about the suspect, do you have any description? The suspect is an adult male. His standard protocol, the Office of the Medical Examiner will positively identify the man and release his identity. Is there a second suspect? There was a female passenger in the suspect vehicle. She was transported for evaluation of injuries. Was she shot? It's unclear right now if her injuries are gunshot related. You won't call her a suspect yet, are you not ready to identify her as a suspect? Correct, so investigators will work to determine what her involvement was in this particular situation. How many other cars were damaged? Well, there were two cars at the light westbound on Colfax, Acreback when the officers attempted to do a traffic stop on the suspect vehicle. He attempted to kind of ram his way between those two vehicles, so they're certainly damaged to those two vehicles. Car trying to ram his way through a couple of vehicles, middle of a busy intersection of busy afternoon, just your early on kind of ideas of three officers, lots of bullets flying, is this normal? No, definitely not normal. It's obviously something that we never want to see happen on our streets here. And we're certainly lucky that no other witnesses or parties that were involved were injured in the kind of way. Too early to say if officers followed protocol or not, that's kind of what I was getting. Right, that'll be part of the investigation as a boost for. There'll be a investigation into the criminal aspects of this case. And once that is completed and the DA's office determines whether or not the officer's actions were justified, then the department does an internal review of the situation. Before the shots for a fire, would you characterize it as a pursuit that police were in? It wasn't a pursuit, they pulled up behind the vehicle to my knowledge of this stage of the investigation. They pulled up behind the vehicle to attempt a traffic stop.  And that's where the incident ended there. So a matter of just feet, not even a block really, just did all just happen very close proximity to the vehicle. That's my understanding. Did the police car that pulled up behind, was it marked or unmarked? You know, it was a marked vehicle. It was a marked vehicle. We'll let you know. We'll let you know. And also the firearm handgun? I don't have specifics on what type of firearm at this point. Once the investigators are able to fully process the scene, we will have a little bit more information about this. It's kind of the details of evidence that you guys are kind of seeking right now. You know if the vehicle he was in is stored at Stonewall? I'm not aware if it was stored at Stonewall or not. I apologize, was he under surveillance either by Denver FBI or out of state entities? So to my knowledge, the Safe Streets Task Force was attempting to locate this party. And through those efforts, it was located in this area, which resulted in this attempted stop at Officer Gulch. What's accurate to say that's the FBI? Well, there are multiple agencies that are on the Safe Streets Task Force and can't list them off for you right now. What robbery or robberies occurred in this jurisdiction? So we'll have to, that's information that we'll have to get to be able to release to you guys. I don't have that with me right now to be able to say what cases in Denver are connected to the suspect and what cases from other jurisdictions. It's just not detailed that I have right now to release. I don't know what the Safe Streets Task Force is, what's their objective, and who's part of that. It's a multi-jurisdictional task force that addresses things. One of them is bank robbers. Is it a traffic violation or are they pulling him over because he's on the Safe Streets? Right. They were attempting to stop because they wanted to locate and place it to custody of this individual for these bank robbers. Is he from Colorado? No, I don't know. Again, the identity of the individual, they determined and released by the Office of Medical Examiner. He was driving away in a car and yet officers see that he brandished the weapon. Is it safe to say that he pointed a gun at officers? Officers observe the weapon and so at that point they obviously made the decision to discharge their weapon. The details of the chronology of that exactly is something that we'll determine through this ongoing investigation. Wouldn't you say brandished? Does that mean he had it in his hand or did they just observe a weapon in a car?  Appreciate it.


Hey everyone, Dylan Schumacher, Citadel Defense, and we are back with another edition of Tactical Book Review. Today's book is Men against Fire, The Problem of Battle Command by S.L.A. Marshall. Also went by Slam, apparently. This is a pretty old book. I believe this came out in 1947, right after World War II. I read this book because it's been referenced in several different things. I've read, most importantly, it was referenced a lot in On Killing by Lieutenant Grossman. So this was why I read it originally. A couple things about this. When I first started reading this book, I thought, ah, this might be a little outdated. This might be a little, you know, he talks about, like for example, people not shooting in combat, which On Killing talked about a lot. And I thought, oh, you know, a lot of military training has kind of corrected that and people actually shoot the guns a lot more now. And maybe this book just doesn't, doesn't have it anymore. And then I kept reading. And this is one of the most impressive books I have read to date on leading people. Obviously, this is specifically leading people in combat. But if you just want to understand leadership and how people work and how to lead people. And if you want it specifically applied to combat even better. But I would recommend this book to you. He does a very good job of just saying, look, right or wrong, this is just how it is. This is how people work. This is how people are motivated. This is how you lead men. And it's a very philosophical level book. It's a very, you know, I wouldn't say it has like direct applications, but it goes through some different case studies. And he just explains how good leaders lead people and give some principles for doing that and some recommendations. And it's a really good book. I mean, if you look at this book, let's just see here. So anytime I highlight stuff in books, that means like that's super important. Okay. And when you look through this book, see if I can do that, you're going to see a decent amount of pink highlights in there. And the reason for that is there's a lot of really good stuff in here that's super important and super good to know. So again, I would highly recommend Men Against Fire. It was one of the watershed works when it came out. And to this day, it still remains a strong contender about 80-ish, a little less years later. So would highly recommend if you're looking for a book because you're a team leader or you're in some kind of leadership position specifically for men in some kind of dangerous or combat-like situation. This is a good book for you to read if you want to be better at your job. Do brave deeds and endure.


mean that people are seriously going to pursue that position, I think it's going to be there. But we also expect that there will be similar, you know, high levels of competition for the Prime Minister position and that's it. Right. Yeah. Now with these positions that are coming up, ideally from our leaders who have been there for a very long time, do you think a common youth is into picture? I don't know what you mean by a common youth. You see the older people are always there. So will the youths go for this? Because I remember even like I mentioned earlier, the position like for MCS, which is wide mostly by the youths, was said to be scrapped off. Now, do you think with the Prime Minister and the Deputy and every other thing that will come along, do you think the youths will be engaged into this, or they will leave it to the elderly? What has prevented the youths from buying in this country has nothing to do with the adequacy of political seats. It has everything to do with structural problems, you know, favoritism within political parties, lack of resources. But even more importantly for this country, it is a public that is quite apathetic to the election of public affairs. So if you think you're going to appeal to young people, you realize they're not that very active within the political system. So the problems are much broader, and if the problems are that systemic, then if you're seeking new representation then this particular referendum will only bring granular reforms. All right, and in your own thinking or your own opinion, why do you think the youths are not involved in this political system, majorly? There are many factors. One could cite the levels of education in this country. You know, people seem to imagine because we have very many universities, a thousand graduates every year, that is not a very significant chunk relative to the entire population, right? The other problem is that people are unable to relate their daily problems, you know, with the problems in government, and the problems that we face are largely connected to government. So as it becomes more evident that the problems that we face are connected to, you know, the government, then I think people are going to have greater karma for that. Now, just last week we saw the President giving more powers to one and only C.S. Matiangi. He's now called Mr. Fixit because he's fixing like everything. Now, do you think this was a position of a premier in disguise? A premier in disguise? It might be. It might very well be to the extent that the powers that it seems to have, of all intents and purposes, the powers of a prime minister. If you see a person bringing together, you know, essentially convening a meeting of cabinet, you know, and a number of cabinet secretaries answering to the pan, then you might be tempted to think this is a prime minister. So I think it's a prime minister who doesn't have the title in other words. All right. Now, being the prefect of the other C.S. always colleagues rather, what can you see about Dr. Alfred Matiangi? I think he's going to do a good job. Those who are concerned about Matiangi's continued presence in government even after 2022 might say that this puts him on a coalition course with the deputy president. That might well be the case, especially for a person who might be interested in political office of being in public service after 2022. So that might present problems for him. I see how those problems might emerge there. But I think he's a very effective man. You look at all the ministries he has been, his performance has been quite exemplary. And I think we have to give it to him as we are those of us that are concerned about the trajectory of this country's predicament economic affairs. Before we move on, you as a person or as a Kenyan, do you think it was a way of humiliating the D.P.? I don't think so. I don't think so. And I think those people- Because anyone would have expected the deputy president to be added more power, not the C.S.? I think it only means that the president doesn't have much confidence in the deputy president, especially in executing those particular responsibilities. And I see how, because it's quite evident that the deputy president is more concerned about the politics of 2022, despite all his disguises, that is about development and that is just meant for the common man. But if you analyze it critically, it's just meant to advance his political course in 2022. And therefore I think the president sees this. And as he has realized, he cannot realize, he cannot depend or realize his political ambitions, you know, depending on, you know, the deputy president. So I think it's just for someone else. And who else do you look at? Matiangi. All right. Could we hope for Matiangi getting a bigger position now, apart from the C.S. prefect or the premier that is- You know, Matiangi is a guy who wrote a very nice quorum over the weekend, in which he said that this man is just but a political godfly for DP Ruto. Matiangi has no political clout. You know, people will estimate him even in QC. He has not tested the waters politically. So he might have the powers, you know, that comes with being a public official, but in terms of being a politician, the money is not tested. Right. And I think we need to bear this, put this into consideration. And therefore I think if he is in good terms with the DP, then he might continue to be in government. But in terms of a political position, I don't see him pursuing that, but a political position. Now, let's talk about his performance for the last three events that have happened. Let's begin with the matatu industry. He's not in the matatu industry, but he affected the formerly Michoquillos and the Wiso, how the whole nation or the Kenyans in the matatu industry obeyed to the rules. Now, do you think we need someone like that in leadership, speak of the presidency, who has some sort of dictatorship? Dictatorship is a huge word to use. It's a huge word to use. But you require a person who is firm, you know, and a person who, I'm a tricky kind of person, a person who says we are going to do this and pursue it. There are concerns, much earlier, remember with some of the decisions that Yang Yan made, whether he was, you know, sticking to the precincts of the constitution. I think those were genuine concerns, right? So I think the person who is there must try to remain effective within the confines of the constitution. Especially within the legal architecture in which this country is moving into, and that will be crucially important. All right. Now, we are running out of time, but then with these morals added to him, do you think he will execute them effectively like he has been doing, especially now that we have a question of security? You know, that's an important question. You know, every man no matter how effective as 24 hours in a day, they can only do two months, right? So I think we are yet to see. I don't want to engage in too much speculation on that one, but we are yet to see. There's a possibility that it might be stretched, right? But I'm aware of one or two things within the Interior Ministry, and I know they have a very wonderful team that is managing the entire sector, the internal security. So it's possible that even if he dedicates attention to other areas, that his principal mandate will be properly catered for. All right. Yeah. I want us to finish by answering this question. You might have answered it earlier, but then do you think stripping the presidency of its power will help to solve the problems we have as a nation of ethnicity? Well, let me just elaborate this. Why we are stripping the president of powers is not just addressing the question of ethnicity as I've thought, is because historically the president has, the presidents have played a very panaceous role, you know, in what we call is on to a musculation, is a patient of power, completely musculating other institutions of governance. I think that is a principal reason why people should seek to spread this power. The other issue is, of course, now they're spreading power to different offices, right? I don't think quite sincerely stripping the president of powers is going to resolve the problem. There are those who argue that the president, why the president was sort of exacerbating ethnic problems in this country is because he was allocating resources particular parts of the country. And I think that was particularly solved by the developed system. So I don't know those, why the president is going to resolve this problem of ethnicity, how the president is going to do it, despite him being ceremonian or not. So I don't think, in other words, I don't think he's going to do it. I think we better depend on other mechanisms, like ensuring greater interaction in this country through growing the economy, ensuring people are moving to different parts of the country, which I think are the core of the ethnic problems that this country faces. All right. Many thanks for coming and sharing your sentiments. We appreciate your presence here. Many thanks for keeping us company. Coming up next is why Mashareke and they have a new DJ. It's called DJ Nautina. So keep it Y254 Steel II. NJW is coming up next. He has been my guest, Loi Fodumahis, the chair of the Global Strategy Group. And my name is Dereva Hillary. See you on Friday. Have a good night.