Mom in High Heels Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I know it's part of our legal system that someone is innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes it drives me crazy when they call someone who clearly did as the "alleged" or "suspected" insert crime here. On the news they keep calling Holmes the alleged or suspected shooter. Don't we know he did it? People saw him. The weapons have his prints all over them. He booby trapped his apartment. Why can't they call him the shooter? George Zimmerman did it, yet they are still calling him the alleged shooter. He admits to doing it. I'm not debating the legality of what he did, as I know this a hot button issue, but why call him alleged? Again, I know it's the legal system, but if I were the family member of one of the shooting victims, this would really, really anger me. It seems insulting to them. I get it if someone is arrested for something that they may or may not have done, but if someone clearly committed the crime, this bothers me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garddwr Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I agree that it is frustrating because these particular cases are pretty clear cut, but I think the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" by a court of law does need to be maintained as a standard across the board. I would rather use "alleged (whatever)" in every case than have some not-so-clear cases where guilt was publicly ascribed without proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettyandbob Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 If the media doesn't do that and the government seeks to prosecute, the attorneys for the defendant will have support to claim that the media unfairly influenced the jury pool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkacademy Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I could be off base but isn't it also because they can be innocent under the mental disease/defect thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmrich Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Even if found innocent - self defense or mentally ill - he is still the shooter. I understand why the media does it, but it is irrating that we live in a land where being afraid of a lawsuit means one can not speak the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebra Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I think the media is a powerful thing, and they really have to be careful to use the term "alleged" until he is proven guilty. Because, if they keep saying he IS the shooter, then it could be argued that the media falsely swayed the jury. And the last thing you want is this guy's conviction not to be rock solid. On top of that, too many people are falsely convicted of things in this country. Anyone can make any sort of allegation about you that they want. Hopefully the truth comes out in court. We can not give the media the power to decide who is innocent. The bottom line is, you weren't there and you really don't know what happened. The media says a lot of things, and you really don't know if this guy is the shooter or not. You're trusting THE MEDIA. THEY weren't there either. Again, hopefully the courts will get to the truth. The guy is locked up, he will go to trial. I don't have a problem calling him "alleged" until he is actually convicted. I understand the frustration, but "innocent until proven guilty" is sooooooo important I am willing to put up with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 If the media doesn't do that and the government seeks to prosecute, the attorneys for the defendant will have support to claim that the media unfairly influenced the jury pool. This and liable. Even after a guilty verdict the press will still be very careful about how they refer to the guilty party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jelbe5 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Personally, I wish this guy had resisted so the police could have taken care of the situation. Now tax payer money will be wasted on a trail. This guy will get free room and board and medical care for the rest of his life. He destroyed the lives of so many. I am normally not an advocate for the death penalty, but in this case . . . I think individuals like this should be put in solitary confinement with the bear minimum of necessities and a cyanide capsule. Then they can decide to check out anytime they feel the want to.:glare: Edited July 23, 2012 by jelbe5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom in High Heels Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 Oh, I get it, I just don't like it. Zimmerman has given his version of the incident multiple times and has always admitted he did it, but still, he's the "alleged suspect." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 No. I think either way they can still be found guilty. Either they put him in prison or a mental hospital (which is pretty much the same). A defendant can plea "not guilty by reason of insanity" or in the rare case "guilty but insane/mentally ill." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Then there was the guy who used the Twinkie defense. Insane due to Twinkie consumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Kate Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Personally, I wish this guy had resisted so the police could have taken care of the situation. Now tax payer money will be wasted on a trail. This guy will get free room and board and medical care for the rest of his life. He destroyed the lives of so many. I am normally not an advocate for the death penalty, but in this case . . . I think individuals like this should be put in solitary confinement with the bear minimum of necessities and a cyanid capsule. Then they can c decide to check out anytime they feel the want to.:glare: I am typically against the death penalty as well, but in this instance, I totally agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I wish the media were more careful with their speculation. Innocent people gat harmed, because the media is too quick to put speculation out as fact. By the time the truth is found many people believe the media's speculations and never learn or believe the truth. I would rather they just report the facts, even the annoying ones (the alleged shooter has not be found guilty in a court of law). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 If the media doesn't do that and the government seeks to prosecute, the attorneys for the defendant will have support to claim that the media unfairly influenced the jury pool. :iagree: Personally, I wish this guy had resisted so the police could have taken care of the situation. Now tax payer money will be wasted on a trail. I am typically against the death penalty as well, but in this instance, I totally agree with you. even about-to-abolish-the-death-penality connecticut found their breaking point and many residents as well as prosecutors were glad to have the death penality as an option in one case. (where it was handed down for two perps.) though I did like the pp's suggestion of solitary and a cyanide pill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Zimmerman admits he shot Martin. The only question is whether it was justifiable or not. IF it was justifiable, like I believe, he isn't a suspect because there was no crime. Which is why even though he is an admitted shooter, he is not necessarily a proven suspect- he is just a alleged suspect because in this case, unlike the Aurora case, the question is whether there was any crime at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVNA Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I think a lot of the use of "alleged" shooter, etc came from the Olympic Park Bombing and the mob mentality that focused on Richard Jewell(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell). He was fully exonerated and won several libel suits after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I think a lot of the use of "alleged" shooter, etc came from the Olympic Park Bombing and the mob mentality that focused on Richard Jewell(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell). He was fully exonerated and won several libel suits after that. :iagree: Even when they use "alleged" they can still speculate and hurt innocent people (Duke lacross team). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galatea Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I think the media is a powerful thing, and they really have to be careful to use the term "alleged" until he is proven guilty. Because, if they keep saying he IS the shooter, then it could be argued that the media falsely swayed the jury. And the last thing you want is this guy's conviction not to be rock solid. On top of that, too many people are falsely convicted of things in this country. Anyone can make any sort of allegation about you that they want. Hopefully the truth comes out in court. We can not give the media the power to decide who is innocent. The bottom line is, you weren't there and you really don't know what happened. The media says a lot of things, and you really don't know if this guy is the shooter or not. You're trusting THE MEDIA. THEY weren't there either. Again, hopefully the courts will get to the truth. The guy is locked up, he will go to trial. I don't have a problem calling him "alleged" until he is actually convicted. I understand the frustration, but "innocent until proven guilty" is sooooooo important I am willing to put up with it. I think the media in general learned a big lesson from the Richard Jewell 1996 Olympics thing. They were so quick to suspect him, to label and blame him, during that investigation. And because of this, they destroyed his life, caused him to be sued by victims' families, and were eventually sued by him. It's a very good point that no one from the media was there, I wasn't there, I don't think any of you were actually there. It's commonly accepted that Holmes was the shooter, because that is what is being reported, by individuals, law enforcement, and the media. But what's commonly accepted isn't always true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.