Why are they always "suspects"

[nostatic]

what we can clearly see? You fail to understand a basic principle of media: it all has bias. There is no such thing as "photorealism", and bias exists in everysingle frame of video and audio. You nor I are "judge, jury and executioner."

I see your point, but think it is dead wrong, and is a step on top of a big banana leading down a seriously slippery slope (that unfortunately is already trampled on by our current administration).

[Moses]

Man, you guys are missing the point!

Are TV commentators held to a constitutional presumption of innocence? Hell no.

Can you imagine Sept. 11 reported that way? "Alleged terrorists may have, could have, might have, reportedly have purposefully attacked the world trade center!"

[KevinP73]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
Sure, the constitution applies to everyone. I just think in such glaringly obvious situations as this, the media can call him what he is. there is no doubt about what this guy did. There's no point in putting up the charade. If he hadnt been shot, put him on trial, give him a fair one, and go through all of those steps. But there's no reason for us to pretend that this guy didn't do what we can clearly see.

In all fairness nobody here or even on the video coverage actually saw him steal the car. Maybe he just borrowed from his crack head cousin who was really the one who stole it. That would make him "in posession" of a stolen car but not actually a car thief.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Moses
Man, you guys are missing the point!

Are TV commentators held to a constitutional presumption of innocence? Hell no.

Can you imagine Sept. 11 reported that way? "Alleged terrorists may have, could have, might have, reportedly have purposefully attacked the world trade center!"

that's what the courts are for:

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0829656.html

So yes, they are held to a standard...

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by Moses although interes

Are TV commentators held to a constitutional presumption of innocence? Hell no.

Can you imagine Sept. 11 reported that way? "Alleged terrorists may have, could have, might have, reportedly have purposefully attacked the world trade center!"

Actually not too far off! AP press stories would not refer to the terrorists as 'terrorists', but only 'hijackers' (althought interestingly not 'suspected hijackers')!

[jyl]

So, to those of you who despise the media, do you want the media now to have the power to declare whether people are guilty or not?

You can't say you want the media to declare people as criminals only in "clear cases", because then you have to trust them to deide what is a clear case.

What I'm saying is, you can't just viscerally react to one specific situation. You need to think this through to its logical conclusion.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by KevinP73
I think the moment he hit the ground they should have dropped the "suspect" reference and called him "the current Darwin Award Winner"

No, no, no - "the suspected Darwin Award Winner".

[Burnin' oil]

It's not a Constitutional issue, it's a liability issue

[pbs911]

The media is concerned about defamation civil suits.

[lm6y]

Burnin' Oil has it right. They say "suspect" Or "suspected" to avoid a lawsuit.

[juanbenae]

i suspect he's dead.

[widebody911]

Ok, now read the updated account of what happened.

Observation: since these cops were in uniform when they shot the place up, why are they not in uniform when presenting their apology? Are they not representing their department for this apology?

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050514141509990004&ncid=NWS00010000000001

[mede8er]

A) Suspect/suspected.... = innocent until proven guilty?
- Fray Adjaycent

B)I see your point, but think it is dead wrong, and is a step on top of a big banana leading down a seriously slippery slope (that unfortunately is already trampled on by our current administration).-nostatic

C)The media is concerned about defamation civil suits.-pbs911

D)You nor I are "judge, jury and executioner."
-nostatic

E) All of the above

The answer is E. There can never be even the smallest hint of compromise where civil rights are concerned......

Something concievably 'minor' to most may ultimately have devastating effects. Similar to the hypothesis about the butterfly taking flight in an African veldt starting a chain reaction of wind events which build and build, culminating as major hurricanes in the Atlantic......