Comments on: Proven innocent?

By: HeyMeg

HeyMeg — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:01:19 +0000

I generally just use the more professional phrase, “J’accuse!” But then I am very sophisticated.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:45:57 +0000

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).

By: CoolDMZ

CoolDMZ — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:15:32 +0000

I could be confusing “accused” with “charged”… maybe “accused” and “alleged” are interchangeable even in criminal law context?

By: sac-eats

sac-eats — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:29:34 +0000

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.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:38:43 +0000

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.

By: CoolDMZ

CoolDMZ — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:47:43 +0000

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”?

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:14:57 +0000

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.

By: badhairday

badhairday — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:12:06 +0000

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’.

By: RonTopofIt

RonTopofIt — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:37:39 +0000

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!

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:45:25 +0000

…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?

By: adamant

adamant — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:30:19 +0000

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!

By: RonTopofIt

RonTopofIt — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:10:12 +0000

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.

By: Turty Squip

Turty Squip — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:39:31 +0000

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.