Why are they always "suspects"
 

Watching the news, they had a story about some car chase in Cali where the "suspected car thief" was shot to death. Now, the guy had a gun already and was reaching for another weapon when he was shot, as he was running to get into a store, where there were innocent people.

My problem, is why are these car guys always 'suspected' car thiefs? They have the guy on video driving the car, it's not like it was his stunt double. He did it. He's not a suspect, he's a car thief.

You are far too rooted in reality to live in California. We prefer to circumnavigate issues until they are thoroughly distorted. We would not want to offend the friends and families of car thieves by including the shooting victim in their group.

innocent until proven guilty in a court of law......

Exactly. They had probable cause to chase him and to shoot him. What kind of dumb*** attempts to point a gun at at least 7 officers with precision shooting skills. Evolution takes another idiot off the street.

It disturbs me that you - a proponent of the right Bryan even have to ask this question.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty - at least I would hope. The proof here is pretty evident of course.

In this case it is symantics I suppose but on principal I agree with it - he must be presumed innocent until proven guilty just like everyone else should hope to be - well - right up until he 1) had a weapon and 2) tried to use it.

What really gets me is how the media sensationalizes these chases right up until their culmination. They say "it's news! We're just reporting the news!" but the reality is there is only one reason to do this kind of reporting live, ratings. I rarely if ever watch the local news shows because that's all they are after - ratings. They aren't news shows - they are commercial shows. I would much rather read the paper or the news on the internet (even though they do sensationalize things on the internet as well I suppose) but the local news with the exception of the rarely interesting "human interest" report just isn't.

Rant over - flame on.

(edited for brevity by KevinP73)precision shooting skills Is this the same precision demonstrated when they unloaded 120 rounds into the other idiot (a couple days before) and only caused minor injuries?? I think someone needs to spend a little more time on the shooting range.
A dead one, or at least one WE won't have to put thru the court system at taxpayer expense.

Didn't hear about this one but I spent a a few hours with a gunsmith for the CHP last year and he informed how difficult the training is. He also attempted to show me what was involved in it.

Suspect/suspected.... = innocent until proven guilty?

There is a video floating around on the internet of the cops shooting up the truck. Crazy stuff.

Re: Re: Why are they always "suspects"
 

To be more accurate these idiots are NOT being shot for stealing cars. They are shot for posing an immediate threat to the lives of officers and innocent civilians. In this town car thieves only serve a couple years in prison and then are released back into society to do it all over again.

Re: Re: Re: Why are they always "suspects"
 

Where I come from you only do a couple years for killing someone.... Car theives are given probation and told never to do it again......if they do it again they are told in a more stern voice..."never do it again"......and given super-double probation......it is truly pathetic......

it must be working tim, I can't think of the last time I heard of a canadian car thief on the evening news.

Trust me Kevin, there are plenty, in some areas the police are not even allowed to chase stolen vehicles for the risk it poses to the public. The theifs just laugh and circle them in parking lots trying to get them to chase.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why are they always "suspects"
 

I think if a woman on a cell phone while driver her SUV is considered dangerous , then a stoned idiot fleeing from police in a Ford Bronco is equally a danger.

I understand 'innocent until proven guilty,' I just think that in a case as glaringly obvious as this one that at least the media could drop the 'suspected.' Sure, Michael Jackson is a 'suspected' child molestor, becuase there is (arguably) some doubt there. He hasn't been convicted.

If he had been video taped molesting the boys, and the boys had been holding two forms of identification, and his grandmother was there, with a sheriff as a witness, then I think it'd be fair to say that they could drop the 'suspected' from the caption.

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

You might want to read the 6th amendment again:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/

Or does the constitution not apply for everyone?

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.

I'm sure they didn't mean for the constitution to be an inconvenience.
SmileWavy

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).

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!"

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.

that's what the courts are for:

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

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

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

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.

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

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

The media is concerned about defamation civil suits.

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

i suspect he's dead.

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=NWS000100 00000001

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......:eek: