Is anyone else really tired of "Alleged?"

[dballance]

I remember back in the good 'ole days when a murderer was caught with the gun and blood on his hands the news called him/her a murderer. They didn't demure to the "alleged" murderer term. They stated the facts.

So it really galls me that "news" media is still referring to James Holmes as the "alleged" shooter in Aurora. For goodness sakes. He was apprehended in back of the theater with guns used to kill people and his apartment was booby-trapped to kill anyone who might try to enter it. He's not freaking alleged to be a killer. He was caught red-handed and is a freaking killer.

Now there is the shooter at the Sikh temple who is "alleged" to be a racist and white supremacist. There are plenty of pictures surfacing on the web of him with a white supremacist band and compatriots. There is the picture of him with the Nazi flag in it.

So there is ample proof he's NOT just alleged to be a racist white supremacist he IS one.

Call it like it really is "news" people. James Holmes is a mass murderer. Daniel Page is a mass murderer. Jared Loughner is a mass murderer. There is nothing "alleged" about it. The facts clearly show they did the crimes.

Maybe one day there will be a courageous news anchor who says "fuck the legal department. I'm going to report the real news." Of course the court battles will ensue. Maybe the tide will turn back to realism though.

[Renew Deal]

1. Is anyone else really tired of a fair trial?

[kenfrequed]

6. This was better worded than my response.

Personally, I am really tired of street crime taking such a prominent place in the news. But yes, I think it is important that our media actually treat 'Innocent until proven guilty' in a More absolute fashion. If anything they need to back off further from reporting on crime and punishment.

Of course in this particular case, the crime is particularly odious and the motive is probably apparent and the evidence is rather strong, but we still have to provide these rights, even to monsters.

[RKP5637]

29. MSM reports on what best fattens their bottom line, so they will milk this

'till dry. We don't have mainstream news in the US, just P&L machines operating under the guise of mainstream news.

[cthulu2016]

7. Of a dead man?

Last edited Tue Aug 7, 2012, 11:09 AM - Edit history (1)

The OP is correct in the temple shootrt instance. "Alleged" is an acknowlegment of our legal process. It doesn't need apply to someone who will not be standing trial.

But the OP is dead wrong about Holmes, who is awaiting trial.

[dballance]

14. Interesting take on my thread - I never advocated against fair trials

Of course, I never said anyone should be deprived of a fair trial. I believe in them.

But seriously, when you are shot dead in the parking lot of a place of worship after having obviously shot and killed people it's really time to stop saying you're the "alleged" shooter. Come on. Many, brown people peacefully assembling for worship and one white, angry, skinhead guy with known ties to white supremacist groups with at least one Glock in his possession? You really need to wait for a jury of his peers on that one to figure it out?

The fact is so many of these radical, racist groups are abusing the US legal system. They think it's fine and dandy when they can use it to promote gun rights and to try to clear their radical shooters. But when it comes to calling them out and calling them supporters of racism and insurgents who incite people like Daniel Page to violence well then that's just "defamation of character."

Get real and stop being naive. The playing field is not level. Until we start to take it back it never will be.

A murderer caught outside the theater in his defensive garb with weapons is not an "alleged" murderer. A murderer shot dead in the parking lot of a temple after he shot a police officer 8 or 9 times is not an "alleged" murderer. They are murderers.

In the face of obvious facts I don't have to wait for a jury to weigh in to form my opinion. Which, by the way, I am entitled to my opinion.

[joeglow3]

39. But a responsible media SHOULD wait for a jury.

Otherwise, who defines where the line in the sand is. Who determines which person is called a criminal without a trial and which is "alleged"?

[dballance]

60. Why should the media wait for a jury?

The media's business is not fairness or upholding the Constitution. It is now very much about corporate profits. So being first with a story is their bread and butter.

Of course I fully support them having to eat crow when they screw up reporting like they did with the Supreme Court's ruling on ACA.

But you are a very naive person if you think our current media give a shit about "innocent until proven guilty." Our current media is often judge, jury and executioner as they report on news stories. People are either "innocent" and wrongly condemned or "guilty" psychopathic murders in our media. Which meme gets picked for the accused is only dependent on ratings.

And frankly I find your argument that "a responsible media SHOULD wait for a jury" to be specious. Why do we need to wait for a jury to say a person is guilty when they are caught red-handed with the weapon(s) they used to kill people still in their hands before the media can fairly say they are guilty? Or that a skinhead is gunned down after shooting a police officer in a temple parking lot? He's guilty.

They are freaking guilty so why not be able to say it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. "Why should the media wait for a jury?" I can't believe you think that's a serious question

"The media's business is not fairness or upholding the Constitution. It is now very much about corporate profits"

You appear to be saying that the corporate profits are a good thing, and they should take precedence over a fair trial by an unbiased jury. You say "Our current media is often judge, jury and executioner as they report on news stories" - which is, obviously, a bad thing. But you are calling on them to do it more. What the fuck are you trying to say?

You make no sense. You are contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next, time and time again.

[dballance]

70. You obviously managed to miss my disdain for our current media

If you are going to quote me and try to twist my words into something I obviously did not mean then try to look at my entire post. How you could possibly get from my post I think our current media is good or that corporate profits are a "good thing" and they take precedence over a fair trial or objective reporting is really beyond me.

Perhaps you should refer back to my post you've quoted and re-read this part:

"But you are a very naive person if you think our current media give a shit about "innocent until proven guilty." Our current media is often judge, jury and executioner as they report on news stories. People are either "innocent" and wrongly condemned or "guilty" psychopathic murders in our media. Which meme gets picked for the accused is only dependent on ratings."

I missed the part of my post where I call for them to do this more.

It seems that just like our current media you only acknowledge the parts of stories or posts that seem to support you viewpoint. My entire post was quite consistent and I don't see where I contradicted myself. Perhaps you can point that out to me. In fact, I think my post was a condemnation of our current media talking heads and supposed news reporters which is as it was intended.

Obviously the sarcasm in the title of the post was a bit more than some feeble minds could comprehend.

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. So the whole thread is sarcasm? You are actually happy that they say 'alleged'?

Wow, you've kept this going a long time, in that case. This was all a way of saying "the media has to say 'alleged' to avoid prejudicing a jury", but we've all missed the sarcasm until now?

[dballance]

76. Wow, such twisted logic

I find it very interesting when people twist logic so much. I'm waiting for the SNAP I'll hear when that logic breaks.

I wrote a post that was obviously critical of the media and could be understood by any person with an IQ over 50. However I am being taunted and berated and people are making the argument I actually support the stupidity that our media does.

To anyone with an IQ over 50 a clear reading of my original post will show sarcasm and condemnation for the talking heads who pretend to be news reporters.

Yes, one of the real reasons news reporters and shows use the term "alleged" is to avoid prejudicing a jury. However, I think their legal teams insist they use that term to avoid libel suits or defamation suits.

I don't for a minute believe they are using "alleged" to be noble or give the the offender the benefit of the doubt until a jury weighs in. They are covering their asses against lawsuits.

The point of my original post is that we have taken it to the most absurd level of "appropriateness." When one is caught with a the gun in their hand that was just used to murder multiple people I think it's okay to drop the term "alleged" in front of murderer.

When one is gunned down by police after having clearly shot a police officer 8 or 9 times I think it's okay to drop the term "alleged" in front of assailant or shooter.

If some one wants to sue to defend their reputation and character then go for it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. It seems to be a matter of "dballance knows the point where the media can drop 'alleged'

and if the media doesn't do it at exactly that point, then the media is being stupid".

The media is following the law. You're castigating them for not agreeing with you when it's appropriate to ignore it.

[dballance]

79. get over yourself muriel

You never made a good argument to rebut anything I've posted. Maybe you should go to freeper-land where it's okay to just say stuff without having to worry about proof or reality.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. You think "go to freeper-land" is part of an argument?

You continue to claim that you know when the media should ignore the law, and when they should risk lawsuits. You're the one who needs to get over themselves. You haven't posted anything that needs rebutting. It's all your opinion that you know best.

[DirkGently]

74. I remember they called Richard Jewel a "suspect" & got sued.

They ruined the man's life after falsely implying he was the Olympic bomber.

I'd rather my sources of information report the known facts, not what appears to be true in the heat of the moment.

[freshwest]

83. This is the reason for using the word alleged, because of lawsuits. They still play it as guilty,

Because they have correctly gauged the blood lust of the audience. We won't miss any of the gory details and the human part of the stories. Unfortunately, they don't hold themselves to this same standard when making political reports. Because freedom of the press was mainly intended to allow the people to criticize the government without being hung by the rulers.

[IDemo]

24. Then you're agreed that mugshots should not be published

Glad to hear it.

[pscot]

2. Definitely

[CJCRANE]

3. Not really.

That's the thing about laws ands rights and following due process, there should be no exceptions, everyone should be treated the same.

I'm okay with that.

[Bluerthanblue]

4. when the person doing the shooting is shot dead, they aren't "alleged"

they are the shooter.

What kind of 'due process' is needed?

[CJCRANE]

12. The media sometimes gets it wrong.

I wasn't there, I don't know what happened and sometimes neither do the media pundits - they don't always have the correct information. I'm sure we all have experience of the media jumping to the wrong conclusions so I don't think there's anything wrong with being slightly cautious.

It's possible other stuff happened that we don't know about so IMO it's best to let the authorities analyze the crime scene and formally identify the perpetrator.

[Bluerthanblue]

22. I'm not basing this on the media- the police

arrived, one of the officers was shot nine times by the shooter, and the shooter was then shot by another police officer. He was there, saw the shooter in action, and killed him.

The media does get it wrong, often. But the police identified the gunman as Wade- and also said that he was observed and 'put down' by the "authorities".

As for Wade's involvement with "white power" groups, that is verifiable. We won't ever be able to say for certain what exactly motivated his actions, but we are clearly able to stay he was the person responsible, and he is now dead.

With other incidents, like Loughner- where he was tackled and arrested, I think it is silly to call him "alleged"- Is he guilty of a crime? that is something the courts will decide. But call Wade the 'alleged" shooter, when the police identified him as the shooter and stopped him by killing him, this seems pretty obvious. I'm not relying on the media- but rather the message from the police who were on the scene in this incident.

[DirkGently]

77. The police frequently get it wrong too.

Most everyone on this site is highly skeptical of police reports. And the fact is, they get things wrong. Lie sometimes.

Why is it so important to state something as fact in a situation as critical and as notoriously hard to get right on first impression as violent crime?

[dballance]

15. I never said anyone should be deprived of due process

I simply stated my opinion that when one has obviously shot a police officer 8 or 9 times and gets killed in the ensuing gun battle it's a bit ridiculous to refer to them as the "alleged" shooter. It's quite clear they WERE the shooter.

So many of us on DU insist we are the "reality based" people as opposed to the RW idiots. How funny it is we are so willing to suspend reality and use the term "alleged" in clear cases of obvious guilt by murderers shot dead in the act of committing their crimes.

[CJCRANE]

17. The thing is...

sometimes there are several people with the same name, so the media might show a photo of the wrong person or try to dig up info about them and their family...and dig up info about the wrong person. It happened with the Aurora shooting, where ABC (I think it was) released incorrect information about a Tea Partier. That's quite frightening for the person who is wrongly labeled as a killer.

Or there might some other type of mistaken identity, it's hard to say if you're not there.

Also, we don't know exactly what happened inside the Temple. Maybe someone else pulled out a gun and tried to shoot back or there was another shooter.

It's better to let the authorities check out the crime scene and release the full information when they have a better idea of what happened.

[dballance]

44. Right, there was a gun-toting Sikh - are you serious?

Last edited Tue Aug 7, 2012, 01:02 PM - Edit history (1)

The Sikh's are one of the most peaceful forgiving people in the world. You think a bunch of them were carrying?

That has to be the most ridiculous and laughable thought.

Mistaken identity? Yep, probably. But exactly how does that excuse the shooter? OOPs, I shot the wrong brown people with turbans?

The white supremacist, racist bastard probably mistook Sikhs for the "evil scourge of Muslims" because they are brown, let their beards grow and wear turbans. But hey, after all, they were brown towel-heads weren't they?

Or mistaken identity of Wade Michael Page??? Maybe we should hold off ID-ing Wade Michael Page and his background just to be fair.

Gee, being the proud band leader of a white racist band and joining with neo-Nazi white supremacists groups certainly does not identify one's personality. No, no mistaken ID. He is the guy in those pics with the Nazi flag.

I'm really sick of the pathetic, wimpy left-wing bullshit that wants to still call Wade Michael Page the "alleged" shooter. And despite the fact he clearly shot a police officer 8 or 9 times and was killed by other officers wants to wait "to let the authorities check out the crime scene and release the full information when they have a better idea of what happened."

What the fuck do you need to wait for? An angry, white supremacist ass shot 6 people dead and was gunned down after shooting a police officer. There is going to be a better idea later of what happened??

[CJCRANE]

48. Thankyou for the interesting discussion.

It's been useful to look into these issues.

But the alleged killer in this case is not called "Daniel Page". AFAIK the alleged killer is Wade Michael Page.

[dballance]

50. Thank You. I was wrong.

I corrected my original post.

Thank you for pointing out my error. I appreciate your calm statement that pointed out I was wrong rather than a rant about how I'm an ass. Although I am often an ass.

Regards,
Dave

[Enrique]

5. it's just a convention

if they use the word allege, you can still consider him guilty if you want, what's the problem?

[cthulu2016]

9. The man is dead. When would you remove the alleged tag?

There will never be a trial. The state makes no formal accusation.

So the alleged tag would remain forever.

The media is just used to the term, without thinking through what it means.

[Enrique]

16. it might vary among the various newspapers

maybe they have a clear cut rule, maybe it's a judgement call. Maybe the reporter asks his boss, "should I keep saying alleged now that he's dead?" Maybe we think they made the wrong call in some case, who knows? But to throw out the whole practice, I don't see a reason for that.

[cthulu2016]

20. We agree. I certainly disagree with the OPs as regards living suspects.

I was referring only to the sikh temple shooter.

The OP is dead wrong about James Holmes, who is alive and awaiting trial.

[Robb]

55. *Allegedly* dead.

Retroactively so, I'd add.

[closeupready]

63. I know it's a serious topic, but this made me lol.

[frazzled]

10. It's not a convention; it's a legal imperative

We have a system that considers a person innocent until proven guilty (even if the accused seems undoubtedly to have committed the crime). For the media to refer to the accused as a "murderer" rather than "alleged murderer" unduly influences the right to a fair and impartial trial.

It goes to the very heart of our judicial system.

[coalition_unwilling]

23. The person accused is innocent until proven guilty even if he or she

confesses to the crime. Good thing, too, as there is a well-documented phenomenon called 'false confession.'

Thank you for your eloquent paean to due process, quaint and obsolete though it may seem at times.

[uppityperson]

25. "Legally" they are considered innocent. In real life, that tag doesn't mean the same thing. I do agr

agree that the reason they use "alleged" is to not influence their right to a fair and impartial trial. But there is a difference between being innocent and legally innocent.

For someone killed while killing someone, I don't think "alleged" has a place in it but becomes a weasel word (my term). It doesn't mean others may not have been involved, but like the Sikh murderer, he wasn't "alleged" but a murderer. If he'd lived to stand trial, then he'd be "alleged" as far as in the court of law.

[jberryhill]

57. I don't think there is going to be a trial

[Marzupialis]

8. No. Sirhan Sirhan had a gun in his hands

Did he deliver the fatal shot? No. You may say yes, but again, I say no. It all depends on the research one has done.

[Bluerthanblue]

11. funny, but Sirhan Sirhan isn't the "alleged" killer- he is the convicted

killer of RFK. So the term "alleged" as the OP describes it isn't valid on him.

I understand your skepticism- but he's no longer the "alleged" shooter because of the outcome of his trial.

[Marzupialis]

13. But would you have called him "convicted" before conviction?

?

Or is it that you believe that when a man is convicted that proves his guilt?

By the way, if I don't believe Sirhan Sirhan killed RKF, then to me he is the alleged killer, because someone is making the allegation. Or you can force me not to think otherwise. Good luck.

Again, the OP refers to a man who has not been convicted. OP doesn't want him to be called "alleged" regardless of conviction status. Can you show me where the OP mentioned conviction?

[uppityperson]

27. "would you have called him convicted before conviction"? What? No, then he was alleged, legally.

[Marzupialis]

43. Thanks saying "legally" for the first time

For a second I thought you meant that a convicted person is necessarily guilty.

[Bluerthanblue]

61. aren't we discussing the "legal" terms in this OP

unless we are actual witnesses to any criminal act, or involved ourselves no one can say with absolute certianty whether anyone is "guilty" or not- and even then, it is open to question.

I believe the OP was talking about the legal standing. I don't think anyone disputes the reality that innocent people are convicted and executed for crimes they did not commit.

[Marzupialis]

64. Ok we agree then

I was probably confused by what you meant at the beginning.

[Bluerthanblue]

67. no problem-

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. Apparently, the jury is still out on this allegedly silly OP n/t

[Courtesy Flush]

19. NO, I DO NOT!

The Constitution still stands!

Are you suggesting that there's no way the cops would lie about having caught someone red handed? You really don't think that's a possibility?

Courts of law decide these things. Not the police, and not the media.

This is DU, not Free Republic.

[dballance]

28. Actually, I think there are many corrupt police AND DA's

The recent spate of cases that have cleared people on death row have shown that police officers and district attorneys can be quite corrupt and self-serving. Many have withheld evidence that would clear the accused who got convicted.

I think it's not unusual at all for police to arrive at a crime scene and form an opinion about who is guilty. Or based on scant evidence arrive at erroneous conclusions.

It is a fault of humans that once we form an opinion we are hard pressed to change that opinion. I think this affects criminal prosecutions in a very negative way. Add to that the political ambitions of some ADAs then you get a really bad situation where the reputation of police and the DA's office are at stake and they will never back down no matter how wrong they are. It's an unfortunate aspect of human nature.

[Courtesy Flush]

41. Which further bolsters my opinion

If it's hard to get a fair trial, imagine trying to get one after the media has declared you guilty.

Remember the DU reaction when President Obama stated that Bradley Manning had committed a crime? It's a powerful and prejudicial thing to do.

[dballance]

72. You are absolutely right

It is hard to get a fair trial. And I shutter down in my soul when I see things like George Zimmerman do a nationally televised interview. The intent was obviously to taint the jury pool and put into their minds a perception of him as the victim rather than the dead boy.

Our media and our politicians regularly taint the jury pool and the court of public opinion. That Brian Williams has still not been fired or re-assigned for alleging James Holmes was a Tea Bagger is deplorable. In his zeal to gin up a controversy for ratings Williams did a disservice to himself and all news reporters.

Note, I am not fond of Tea Baggers but I will extend to them their right to have an opinion and express it. It serves no good when a reporter or politician paints an entire movement or culture with one broad brush. Be that a negative or positive brush. Both are still just the opinion of the bloviator.

[dballance]

21. I'm Happy to go with "alleged" when it applies. Jon-Benet Ramsey Case in point

Everyone from her parents to her brother was "alleged" to have murdered Jon-Benet. Of course our faithful news media didn't sensationalize the case at all - oh, wait I guess they did.

Jon-Benet's parents rightly and properly lawyered-up and didn't talk to law enforcement. Their lawyers appropriately advised them that law enforcement officials would be targeting them as suspects. So the proper thing to do was to not be interviewed by law enforcement officials who would be looking to catch them in contradictory statements any normal human might make but that law enforcement officials in such a high-profile case would want to use to indict them.

So the Ramseys were alleged to have murdered their daughter for some unknown reason. In this case "alleged" is quite appropriate.

[X_Digger]

26. Libel laws.

Search google for "newspaper sued for libel" or "newspaper sued for defamation"

[Xithras]

33. Exactly. It doesn't matter how guilty they may be. You're one hung jury away from a civil suit.

You may think they're guilty as sin, but if you run around calling them a murderer, and a jury later finds them not guilty, you're going to be a ripe target for a defamation suit. After all...you just spent months blaming them for a murder that a court said they didn't commit.

"Alleged" helps to legally insulate you from this risk. It's just a bit of insurance in a risk averse, lawyer-dominated corporate world.

[uppityperson]

30. I am tired of it in certain cases but understand why they do it, usually.

"when a murderer was caught with the gun and blood on his hands", add "in the act" also. There is a difference between being "legally innocent" and "innocent". There is a difference between being a "murderer" and "alleged", as far as "real life" and "legally".

They are mass murderers. But "alleged" is there to not unduly influence jurors and right to a fair trial. Which is ironic, given the moment to moment coverage, in depthness, etc etc etc of the news media. IF they want to not unduly influence jurors and the right to a fair trial, how about the media backing off?

I agree. There is ample proof the Sikh murderer is a racist white supremacist and he IS a murderer.

[Chorophyll]

32. No. "Innocent until proven guilty" is what keeps us from becoming a police state.

Overuse (and occasional misuse) of the word is "alleged" is a small price to pay.

[nichomachus]

34. I never remember the media calling someone a murderer

until he had been convicted in court -- and I was a journalist for decades.

Even if a person is caught with a gun in his hand and covered in blood, he's not a "murderer," until a jury convicts him of murder. It might be clear that he's the shooter or even a killer, but murder is a legal term and is only determined at trial.

Even if he has a gun in his hand and is covered in blood, until there is evidence that he did, in fact, pull the trigger that caused the deaths, it more prudent to say "alleged." We often don't know all the facts.

I covered a story once where there was a melee going on. At one point, the cops saw a young Hispanic guy on top of a cop who was on the ground. The cop was dead. They grabbed the young guy, cuffed him up and roughed him up, and then arrested him for murder. After all, they saw him beating on the cop, which he was.

Turns out on further investigation that the cop, a 30-something guy, had an undetected congenital heart defect and had dropped to the ground in cardiac arrest. The young guy was a bystander who saw the cop go down and was trying to perform CPR, which the other cops prevented him from doing. But until the test results all came back, the good samaritan was known as an "alleged murderer." Good thing they didn't go with just "murderer."

[Brickbat]

36. Unintentionally ironic OP is unintentionally ironic.

Call it like it really is "news" people. James Holmes is a mass murderer. Daniel Page is a mass murderer. Jared Loughner is a mass murderer. There is nothing "alleged" about it. The facts clearly show they did the crimes.

[BigAnth]

37. Does anyone remember the Sam Sheppard case?

Shepperd had his murder conviction overturned by ther U.S. Supreme Court because he was denied due process, in large part due to the highly prejudicial pre-trial publicity. This was a pretty big case for his young attorney, F. Lee Bailey.

[NCTraveler]

38. I think it is prudent for the media to use the term alleged.

Doesn't mean I have to.

[Fawke Em]

40. What days were those?

The press has ALWAYS used "alleged" until the ALLEGED perpetrator was convicted in court or pleaded guilty. To do otherwise is a disservice to the Constitution, which provides all citizens with the presumption of innocence by virtue of the 4th and 5th Amendments.

For more about the use of the word "alleged" in AP Style: http://quizlet.com/1776661/ap-style-test-1-flash-cards/

P.S. In regards to a dead perpetrator, the media will use "alleged" until the police wrap up their investigation and pronounce it so.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. You are wrong about everything, including the name of someone you are calling a murderer.

If you can't manage to make this particular point without actually making a false accusation of murder, the problems with your theory should be self evident.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Take it with the ap

And the constitution.

Wade is dead, so I would probably not say alleged. Holmes still needs to stand trial. There are plenty of nations where the perp has to prove his inocence. In the US the state still has that burden of proof. So the media is responsible in that appellation.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. there probably isn't any doubt in these cases - but I would NEVER want to abandon the principle

of alleged and presumed innocent unless or until proven guilty to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. That principle is one of the basic principles like freedom of speech that protects us all from the tyranny of uninhibited powers of the state.

[MicaelS]

47. I'm not..

I think the proper terminology is what is needed in every criminal case.

Until the person is tried and convicted in a court of law, NOT the court of public opinion, he / she is the "alleged" or "accused".

Once convicted, they are now the "convicted" whatever.

If found not guilty, then they are " found not guilty" of whatever.

[4th law of robotics]

49. It's the appropriate term until after the trial

you don't want the papers determining guilt/innocence.

[jberryhill]

58. When do you think the trial is going to be?

[4th law of robotics]

59. For who?

The Aurora shooter?

Probably not for a while.

[jberryhill]

62. Sorry, wasn't specific

In relation to the shooter in Wisconsin.

[Posteritatis]

51. Not the least bit tired. It's a very important journalistic standard. (nt)

[MADem]

52. But....but.... but!!! It coulda been his EVIL TWIN...! nt

[DefenseLawyer]

53. You aren't the only person who's sick and tired of the Bill of Rights.

That whole innocent until proven guilty thing is a huge pain in the ass.

[JustAnotherGen]

54. I agree on the racist part

It's not longer alleged. Someone have any of his music recordings? Web postings? Interviews with him. That's a duck. It walks and talks like it.

He's dead - is that being alleged? If he's dead because he shot six people who died and a cop shot him before he killed anymore people - that's not alleged either.

But the other cases - alleged until they plead or are proven guilty.

[jberryhill]

56. I don't remember such "good old days"

As far as I can recall, news organizations have used "alleged" until conviction.

In this instance, as the person in question was shot dead in the act, it does seem that someone is being unnecessarily reflexive in use of the term.

[MadHound]

65. First of all, I think your memory is faulty,

As far back as I remember, suspects in any crime, but especially murder, were referred to as "alleged". After all, nasty legal technicalities could come back and bite you if you didn't.

Second, part of our jurisprudence heritage is the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Time after time, that concept has been proven to be necessary and valid. I would hate to throw it away, since it would be a short step away from letting the police, or media, become judge, jury and executioner.

[Kalidurga]

66. In the case of a dead shooter or a suspected shooter...

They can use the term suspected, I think or alleged. I am really don't care Even if the suspect is dead an investigation must be done. The police can let us know what the official ruling is and then we can call them the shooter or the dead shooter. Either way the racist Skin head shooter is dead, there won't be a trial and we know he did it.

[RZM]

69. Generally speaking, it's the right thing to do

I support the practice.

[Red Mountain]

73. I prefer

'Alleged' to indicate some doubt of guilt and 'accused' for those caught red handed awaiting trial or burial.

Even the accused may end up with a lesser conviction or none at all due to circumstance.

[spanone]

75. so you get to guess what is real news and fuck the legalities? oooookaaaay

[Tommy_Carcetti]

82. It seems ridiculous in some situations, but I prefer it until a conviction is final.

Just for a matter of principle.

Besides--and not as if this necessarily the case with Holmes, Page or Loughner--what I used to think was damning evidence is not always so. A person's confession may have been coerced. Eyewitness testimony id'ing a person as the killer can be incorrect. And I beg anyone to watch the documentary "Murder on a Sunday Morning" for that very reason.

So at what point would you drop "alleged"?

[slampoet]

84. I am not tired of Alleged, because I am still an American.

Live with it. It's the deal you made. Stop being a wuss about something that doesn't matter.