Tuscon shooting rant

steamthief · #1 01-17-2011, 12:22 AM

Anybody else tired of the media referring to Jared Lee Loughner as a "suspect" and that he "allegedly" did the shooting? I understand the innocent until proven guilty thing, but why imply any doubt he did the shooting? Idiocracy.

elgecko · #2 01-17-2011, 12:27 AM

I'm pretty sure the justice system determines who a "suspect" is, not the media. You want the media to report something non-factual?

Munjibunga · #3 01-17-2011, 12:29 AM

So what should they call him? Because of the presumption of innocence, to refer to him as "the killer" or something like that would expose the medium and reporter to libel charges.

UnsungZeros · #4 01-17-2011, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steamthief

I understand the innocent until proven guilty thing.

Apparently, you don't. It's a standing journalistic practice to refer to those facing criminal prosecution as "suspect," "defendant" and use "allegedly."

shadowtippy · #5 01-17-2011, 06:12 AM

They have to say ",suspect, etc" to keep from prejudicing anyone that may be on his jury. He has to get a fair trial, no matter what he "may or may not" have done.

Thunderscreech · #6 01-17-2011, 07:08 AM

^ and ^^ got it right. Innocent until proven guilty is how the American Legal System functions.

sloasdaylight · #7 01-17-2011, 08:11 AM

Innocent until proven guilty 101, paging Steamtheif.

boynamedsuse · #8 01-17-2011, 08:30 AM

He is guilty and is a mass murderer. They captured (tackled) him at the scene. Lots of eyewitnesses.

sloasdaylight · #9 01-17-2011, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boynamedsuse

He is guilty and is a mass murderer. They captured (tackled) him at the scene. Lots of eyewitnesses.

But he hasn't been proven guilty yet by our justice system, so therefore he is innocent.

boynamedsuse · #10 01-17-2011, 08:46 AM

A formality. But I do see your point.

sleepytime · #11 01-17-2011, 08:57 AM

Should the news media report the fact that he is a suspect, or should they present their opinion of his guilt or innocence as fact? I think our news media display plenty of unprofessionalism already without bringing them down another rung.

C.Linton · #12 01-17-2011, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boynamedsuse

A formality. But I do see your point.

More or less. He is not legally guilty until a court says he is, and cannot be held liable until and unless that happens, no matter that he was caught red-handed, so to speak. No doubt he will be found guilty, the only thing that would be up for debate is what kind of sentence he might get.

stratovani · #13 01-17-2011, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boynamedsuse

He is guilty and is a mass murderer. They captured (tackled) him at the scene. Lots of eyewitnesses.

You know that, I know that, everybody knows that. Unfortunately, as stated above, the media has no choice but to use the words "suspect" and "allegedly", or leave themselves open to various charges. Believe me, I've felt the same way about this and other incidents, but that's how the system works. Sucks at times but we have no choice. Besides, totalitarian dictatorships never use the words "suspect" and "allegedly".

Stu L. · #14 01-17-2011, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.Linton

No doubt he will be found guilty, the only thing that would be up for debate is what kind of sentence he might get.

There's my issue. Why should sentencing even be a question? Of course I'm from Texas so what do I know...

pbasswil · #15 01-17-2011, 10:19 AM

Slight tangent:

I read a fairly in depth piece on that Jared Loughner (was the NY Times?). After a page it was crystal clear to me that the political angle of this story has been way overblown.

Yes, he targeted a Democrat; but he also apparently abhorred and detested G W Bush.

But more to the point: the guy is a complete mental case! Some combination of psychotic and schizophrenic. Years of dubious contact with reality -- he lived in a strange inner world of his own creation. Example: He told a math teacher that the number 4 should actually be called "16"! And he was not joking, he was in deadly earnest.

So yeah, he was currently influenced by some hard right ideas that have been floating around. But he was actually driven by mental illness.

He believed in a vast, all-pervasive conspiracy to control people's minds. As a result, he was against all government -- an anarchist, basically.

You can't blame the Tea Party for that, whatever your opinion of them.

elgecko · #16 01-17-2011, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbasswil

Slight tangent:

I read a fairly in depth piece on that Jared Loughner (was the NY Times?). After a page it was crystal clear to me that the political angle of this story has been way overblown.

Yes, he targeted a Democrat; but he also apparently abhorred and detested G W Bush.

But more to the point: the guy is a complete mental case! Some combination of psychotic and schizophrenic. Years of dubious contact with reality -- he lived in a strange inner world of his own creation. Example: He told a math teacher that the number 4 should actually be called "16"! And he was not joking, he was in deadly earnest.

So yeah, he was currently influenced by some hard right ideas that have been floating around. But he was actually driven by mental illness.

He believed in a vast, all-pervasive conspiracy to control people's minds. As a result, he was against all government -- an anarchist, basically.

You can't blame the Tea Party for that, whatever your opinion of them.

Actually, yours is the first "political" post in this thread. I'm not quite sure why you would do that.

fo shizzle · #17 01-17-2011, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu L.

There's my issue. Why should sentencing even be a question? Of course I'm from Texas so what do I know...

The reason sentencing will be in question (and also, a verdict, frankly) is due to the shooter's mental capacity. It wouldn't surprise me to see a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict.
He was, and still is completely bat-**** crazy and we as a society don't kill people for being crazy.

Well, in Texas the State kills people for any and all reasons. Due process isn't as big a deal here.

fo shizzle · #18 01-17-2011, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elgecko

Actually, yours is the first "political" post in this thread. I'm not quite sure why you would do that.

I do......

Stu L. · #19 01-17-2011, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fo shizzle

The reason sentencing will be in question (and also, a verdict, frankly) is due to the shooter's mental capacity. It wouldn't surprise me to see a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict.
He was, and still is completely bat-**** crazy and we as a society don't kill people for being crazy.

Well, in Texas the State kills people for any and all reasons. Due process isn't as big a deal here.

I understand where you're coming from, and agree that you're probably right with the verdict. We don't and shouldn't kill someone for being crazy. IMO, and it's just that, he should be put to death for his actions. There's plenty of "crazy" people out there who don't go on a shooting spree. Again all IMO

boynamedsuse · #20 01-17-2011, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fo shizzle

The reason sentencing will be in question (and also, a verdict, frankly) is due to the shooter's mental capacity. It wouldn't surprise me to see a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict.
He was, and still is completely bat-**** crazy and we as a society don't kill people for being crazy.

Well, in Texas the State kills people for any and all reasons. Due process isn't as big a deal here.

Yes--unfortunately, the same thing that is the cause for the crime also serves as the excuse for the crime according to our "legal system."