Why, Why, Why???

Why do we continue to describe Low Life Loser Murderers, captured or killed "at the scene of the crime", "SUSPECTS"???

have not been to court trial yet so its alleged till found guilty by a judge or jury

I already knew the politically correct answer!!
Let’s please be REAL!!

An asshole walks into a synagogue and slaughters at least 11 innocent people, and then goes down, shot.
He is NOT a “suspect”!!

One word: Liability.

They're operating by a rule that says they can't say ANYONE'S guilty, ever, unless they've been legally found so. Sure, in the situation you described it'd be tough to get it wrong. But newscasters (I assume that's who you're talking about) aren't allowed to decide what makes sense case by case. The suits upstairs made that rule so nobody could ever screw up and leave the company open to a lawsuit.

It's not political correctness. It's just a rule that wards off lawsuits. Better to look fucking stupid sometimes than get sued other times, I guess.

Agree with 92. If the media were to come out and call him guilty before his right of due process of law, they would open themselves upto liability.

2nd reason is every defence attorney will argue the media tainted the general public by calling the suspect guilty, and his client could not have a fair trial.

If the obvious may have passed by some... it was a rhetorical question!

Of the people inside of the Pittsburgh Synagogue who were face to face with the idiot, and lived through it... do you think they "suspect " that he may be guilty? Or might they be "sure" of it?

me guess posts 2 4 n 5 mean nothing to you till you are in court

Why do we continue to describe Low Life Loser Murderers, captured or killed "at the scene of the crime", "SUSPECTS"??? Originally Posted by NTJME

You don't have to. Law enforcement and a responsible press will continue to.

have not been to court trial yet so its alleged till found guilty by a judge or jury Originally Posted by offshoredrilling

If they were caught red handed, is there any DOUBT in their guilt though?


That's why I rail against the insepid use of the phrase "Alleged", for all these mass shooters/school shooters, who get CAUGHT IN THE BLOODY ACT.

RIP in all seriousness

Reality and the law have nothing in common.


Next question, please!

Why do we continue to describe ... "SUSPECTS"??? Originally Posted by NTJME

Half a century ago, criminals began claiming in court that they could not get a fair trial because the jury pool had been hopelessly biased by the media calling them criminals. Ever since, they have been called "alleged" and "suspects." For a while, "actor" was also used, until the real actors objected. Liability had little to do with it.