Responses: 3
I'm 50/50 on this. I agree that you should be using the word alleged on people who haven't been found guilty of a crime yet.
But it honestly blows my mind when you see the media use the word alleged on people who have literally been caught dead to rights. Like when the Aurora Theater shooter was caught, the media called him the "alleged theater shooter" for like the 1st 2 weeks.
It's one thing if you weren't caught committing a criminal act... it's a completely different story when you're caught literally in the middle of your criminal actions.
But it honestly blows my mind when you see the media use the word alleged on people who have literally been caught dead to rights. Like when the Aurora Theater shooter was caught, the media called him the "alleged theater shooter" for like the 1st 2 weeks.
It's one thing if you weren't caught committing a criminal act... it's a completely different story when you're caught literally in the middle of your criminal actions.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Justin Goolsby
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - You seem to not understand what after the fact means. I'm not talking about being arrested after you've committed the crime. I keep saying being caught in the middle of the crime. If I walk into a police station in front of a dozen police officers and blow someone's head off, there is no "allegedly". I was caught dead to rights.
(0)
(0)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
Cpl Justin Goolsby - No - you are still going to be an alleged murderer in the newspaper and you still are innocent - LEGALLY - until convicted in a court of law.
Let's say you did walk into a police station and shot a cop in the head. If you had a really good defense lawyer you could possibly be found not guilty. If the evidence was mishandled, if some paperwork wasn't done properly...you could get away with it LEGALLY.
MORALLY if you kill someone you are guilty no matter what the court states. Legally you are guilty. So just like people who are wrongly convicted - legally they are guilty until that gets overturned. Morally they were innocent but got screwed by the system.
Until someone is convicted in a court - whether by jury, judge or pleading guilty - they are an "alleged" whatever they did. Alleged murderer. Alleged rapist. Alleged domestic violence. All alleged.
Let's say you did walk into a police station and shot a cop in the head. If you had a really good defense lawyer you could possibly be found not guilty. If the evidence was mishandled, if some paperwork wasn't done properly...you could get away with it LEGALLY.
MORALLY if you kill someone you are guilty no matter what the court states. Legally you are guilty. So just like people who are wrongly convicted - legally they are guilty until that gets overturned. Morally they were innocent but got screwed by the system.
Until someone is convicted in a court - whether by jury, judge or pleading guilty - they are an "alleged" whatever they did. Alleged murderer. Alleged rapist. Alleged domestic violence. All alleged.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Justin Goolsby
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - And that's the part I said I disagree with literally since the very beginning of my post. I don't know why you keep trying to throw definitions that have zero to do with my disagreement of the subject matter.
(0)
(0)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
Cpl Justin Goolsby - It doesn't matter if you disagree with it or not. Legally no one is guilty in a court of law until they are convicted by a judge or jury OR they plead guilty. It does not matter if I walk into a mall and start shooting the shit out of everyone there and kill 100 people. Legally I'm innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Morally I am guilty. I know I did it. But legally I could be found not guilty if I have the right lawyer and the prosecution fucks up its case.
Look at the OJ Simpson case - the prosecution should have won that but they messed it up. The jurors have said they think he was guilty BUT based on how the case was presented, the evidence how it was presented, etc, they could not convict. The defense played the game better.
Should it be like that? I don't know but it is like that. The point I'm getting at is that it does not matter what you think should happen. You are allegedly a murderer or rapist or anything else until you are convicted.
Everything I said has everything to do with the subject matter - you just don't like it.
Look at the OJ Simpson case - the prosecution should have won that but they messed it up. The jurors have said they think he was guilty BUT based on how the case was presented, the evidence how it was presented, etc, they could not convict. The defense played the game better.
Should it be like that? I don't know but it is like that. The point I'm getting at is that it does not matter what you think should happen. You are allegedly a murderer or rapist or anything else until you are convicted.
Everything I said has everything to do with the subject matter - you just don't like it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next