January 9, 2011
I have written about this before but I'll do it again.
This came up in a conversation with friends in a Galveston coffee shop Sunday morning.
The discussion was about the shooting in Tuscon, Arizona in which the Congresswoman was shot, a child and Federal Judge killed, and 5 others wounded by a psycho who cut loose on them with a semi-automatic Glock pistol loaded with a 30 round clip.
I won't rehash the story because TV is doing a good job of hasing and rehashing and getting every ounce of drama they can squeeze from it.
What came up in the conversation in the coffee shop was not so much the details of the shooting itself but they way the so-called reporters told the story.
As usual, the reporters were using very liberal doses of 'alleged' and 'suspect' when referring to the creep who unloaded on the crowd of people at the Safeway Store.
Now, here's the thing none of us at the coffee shop table understood and never will. Why do the reporters call this shooter a 'suspect' when he was seen by more than one other person doing the shooting? The police don't 'suspect' him. They know it's him. They arrested him. He's in jail.
Why do they say he 'allegedly' shot those people? More than one other person saw him shoot them. One person who saw him shooting, actually tackled him and took the gun away from him. So why say he 'allegedly' shot them? He did it. He 'actually' shot them. There is no 'allegedly' to it, and he's not now, nor has he ever been, a 'suspect'.
He is the 'actual' shooter and he will not 'allegedly' go on trial for the shootings, and it will not be a 'suspected' jury that sends him up the creek for the rest of his 'alleged' life. That is, if they don't send him to a 'suspected' nut house instead.
That's the way I see it. And so do most people I know. And dont' give me that lame excuse that he hasn't been convicted yet. BS.
Breck
http://www.thepolicenews.net/
I have written about this before but I'll do it again.
This came up in a conversation with friends in a Galveston coffee shop Sunday morning.
The discussion was about the shooting in Tuscon, Arizona in which the Congresswoman was shot, a child and Federal Judge killed, and 5 others wounded by a psycho who cut loose on them with a semi-automatic Glock pistol loaded with a 30 round clip.
I won't rehash the story because TV is doing a good job of hasing and rehashing and getting every ounce of drama they can squeeze from it.
What came up in the conversation in the coffee shop was not so much the details of the shooting itself but they way the so-called reporters told the story.
As usual, the reporters were using very liberal doses of 'alleged' and 'suspect' when referring to the creep who unloaded on the crowd of people at the Safeway Store.
Now, here's the thing none of us at the coffee shop table understood and never will. Why do the reporters call this shooter a 'suspect' when he was seen by more than one other person doing the shooting? The police don't 'suspect' him. They know it's him. They arrested him. He's in jail.
Why do they say he 'allegedly' shot those people? More than one other person saw him shoot them. One person who saw him shooting, actually tackled him and took the gun away from him. So why say he 'allegedly' shot them? He did it. He 'actually' shot them. There is no 'allegedly' to it, and he's not now, nor has he ever been, a 'suspect'.
He is the 'actual' shooter and he will not 'allegedly' go on trial for the shootings, and it will not be a 'suspected' jury that sends him up the creek for the rest of his 'alleged' life. That is, if they don't send him to a 'suspected' nut house instead.
That's the way I see it. And so do most people I know. And dont' give me that lame excuse that he hasn't been convicted yet. BS.
Breck
http://www.thepolicenews.net/
1 comment:
It's "alleged" if the party making the accusation has proof of their claim. It's "asserted" if they make the claim and can't show proof.
He was witnessed doing the shooting. Therefore, there is proof to the claim that he is the shooter. "Alleged" is correct. It means the prosecution can make the claim that he is the shooter and PROVE it. It's just up to a jury if they believe the proof beyond the shadow of a doubt.
I think it's clear that they will....
Post a Comment