Perhaps all of you legal eagles out there can help me with something. The Sacramento Bee reports that a man was shot in the abdomen yesterday in downtown Sacramento. The story has a headline that reads, “Sacramento panhandler accused of shooting disabled man.” The first sentence of the story reads, “A woman panhandling in downtown Sacramento Monday pulled out a gun and shot a disabled man who refused to give her money, scattering a terrified crowd gathered at a busy bus stop, police said.”
Is there a difference between *accused* and *police said*? Throw in a photo of the “accused” and you got yourself an open and shut case…
I did enjoy this quote though:
“Why would someone ask money from someone who is obviously disabled?” asked his younger brother, Adrian Perez. “This is really outrageous.”
Do disabled people have a history of not carrying spare change? Just sayin’
Update: Bad example as the suspect has basically confessed to the crime. I do still wonder what terms the media can use, quote, etc. with regard to criminal activities.
| « Mates of State announce show at Harlow’s | Reef hangs’em up » |
13 Comments | Leave a comment
The paper can say whatever they want about crack-ho nutso homeless shooters of the disabled. The crackhead doesn’t have much of a defamation case.
You get “accused” when there isn’t enough evidence that the paper can be sure it won’t get sued. You get “A woman shot a disabled man” when its clear enough, with enough witnesses, and the shooter admits it, but “didn’t mean to kill,” as she pulled the trigger a second time only to have the gun jam.
Save the taxpayers some money here, all you libbo whackos- vollunter to put this nut up in your own home and care for her with your own $ (you can post your house as bail!), or let society take her out back of the court house and put her out of our misery.
posted 9/23/08 at 4:39 pm #
Thanks, Turty Squip, I think.
Although, the first story was published before the “and the shooter admits it…” part.
I remember the first time I saw the libbo whackos.
posted 9/23/08 at 5:10 pm #
Have you ever tried to get change out of your pocket when you were sitting down? They don’t think of disabled people when they design pockets! It’s racist I say!
posted 9/23/08 at 6:30 pm #
…if the police say they believe someone is responsible for a shooting, aren’t they making an accusation? Are you thinking of the word “conviction”, which relates directly to someone being guilty of an accusation?
posted 9/23/08 at 6:45 pm #
Probably, Dan. I bet frequent commenter “Turty Squip” was on the right track with the evidence and witness accounts leading police to make a statement like that. The Bee then takes the “accused” route. Makes sense.
Thanks Sac Rag readers and commenters!
posted 9/23/08 at 7:37 pm #
In the followup interview the Bee writer led with the fact the lady said she was a Christian and felt bad about shooting the guy. I can’t think of a more un-Christian-like act than to react violently against someone just because they won’t give you money. Not trying to start a big religious debate here, just sayin’.
posted 9/24/08 at 8:12 am #
From my experience, the media always writes “The culprit allegedly/reportedly/was said by police to have done such and such”, unless the reporter was right there to witness it. A media outlet would expose itself to libel if the person turns out to be not guilty.
posted 9/24/08 at 6:14 pm #
I think that was what RTOI was getting at… in this case the Bee uses the word “accused,” is(n’t) that different from “allegedly did such and such”?
posted 9/24/08 at 7:47 pm #
Well, if someone is alleged to have done something, that is an accusation…So if the police arrests you on an allegation of a crime, they are accusing you of that crime. To an observer, using the passive voice, that person has been accused of that crime by the police.
posted 9/24/08 at 9:38 pm #
I love it when a media outlet gets so cautious that it claims someone was “allegedly killed” or the “alleged victim of a crime.” I think you’re pretty safe leaving off the qualifiers when talking about the dead person in question.
posted 9/24/08 at 10:29 pm #
I could be confusing “accused” with “charged”… maybe “accused” and “alleged” are interchangeable even in criminal law context?
posted 9/25/08 at 10:15 am #
I think “alleged” carries more of a context of the opinion of a criminal system…whereas the average joe, as well as the police department, can “accuse” or “suspect of.”
“Charged” has a specific meaning…you don’t get charges until your arraignment at court (after you’ve been arrested, obviously).
posted 9/25/08 at 5:45 pm #
I generally just use the more professional phrase, “J’accuse!” But then I am very sophisticated.
posted 9/26/08 at 9:01 am #
Leave a comment