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.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Tuscon shooting rant
- Thread starter steamthief
- Start date
I'm pretty sure the justice system determines who a "suspect" is, not the media. You want the media to report something non-factual?
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.
Apparently, you don't. It's a standing journalistic practice to refer to those facing criminal prosecution as "suspect," "defendant" and use "allegedly."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
C.Linton said:
There's my issue. Why should sentencing even be a question? Of course I'm from Texas so what do I know...
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.
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.
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 said:
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
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."
