He is on film going in, he is on film leaving it's hard to tell through the windshield it's him for sure, but that sure is his car. He left witnesses who confirm it's him. He might not be guilty yet under the law, but he sure is guilty in reality.

to use the term 'alleged' when referring to someone who has been charged with a crime but not yet convicted.

Media don't like to be sued.

than a legal requirement to say "alleged."

Innocent until proven guilty.

I don't doubt he did it. But I don't believe in trial by media, either.

are allowed to publish.

if the media prejudices the jury pool significantly, Roof will walk because he can't get a fair trial under the law. This is not a desirable outcome.

Haven't you read, seen, or heard news stories in which suspects are des ribed as alleged? That term is used by the state (prosecutor) and media because of the legal "innocent until proven guilty". That phrase however is not quite accurage necause an aquittal or non-prosecution is not the same as innocent.

I know one editor that hates it when others call a person a suspect, never mind suspect is the term used in a news release by the police or the DA. Yes, those discussions do happen inside news rooms. This editor hates the use of suspect since it might prejudice a jury.

You can do what you want. But media will do what ethically needs to be done. Until Roof is convicted by a jury, or if he gives up that right, a bench trial, he is "alleged," and "suspect."

Do as you wish, but don't ask media to change long rules and traditions meant to protect people from tainted juries.

we do not find people guilty and proceed to try them in the media. That is why we have a legal system.

Roof is not guilty until the state proves it.

Knowing a tad about a local case that in the end was thrown out on appeal, there is a reason for all this. By the way, his confession to the cops is not proof either, legally. And if you know anything about the legal system, you will know and understand that confessions are forced out of suspects regularly. A bad confession, even if he did it, could throw any conviction out on appeal.

This is why people are careful.

As I posted earlier, there are defamation laws.

since a person of interest can often be a witness as well.

Alleged has such a political tone now, no doubt they have some lee way when the truth is self-evident?

to an on-going legal case. Actually, I don't know exactly what that means. There have been many self-confessed murderers who have been convicted even though they did not commit the crime. I do not believe that is the case with this heinous crime.

I really don't know why people are worked up over this.

prejudicing the community and making a fair trial impossible.

So, I am willing to cope with the terms alleged and suspect.

I never hear those people insisting we wait for the facts when a black person is accused of a crime however. I certainly don't hear the "wait for the facts" crowd waiting for the facts when a shooter claims self defense, in those cases they seem perfectly willing to accept the media accounts and celebrate that a person used their gun to "defend themselves" by taking a life without due process.

I respect those who are consistent and wait for the facts without judgment in all cases, but I see very few people like that. What I do see is a whole lot of people who are very selective on which cases they want to wait for the facts on and it just so happens that nearly all the cases they "wait for the facts" on involve unarmed black people being gunned down.

I never said anything about tracking numerous people but if it makes you feel better to create a straw man I guess I can't stop you.

advice wait and see. Otherwise, you're really just making an unsubstantiated claim and using that to denounce other people as if you get points for being the most outraged.

I generally advice a wait and see policy. In this case, he's almost certainly guilty. But given how many instances where cops have forced confessions out of innocent people (see the Central Park Five, the West Memphis Three, or the torture that Jon Burge used to compel confessions that resulted in Illinois getting rid of the death penalty), even with a confession, I still have some small amount of doubt because there is a history of cops getting confessions that are of questionable usefulness.

As for the eye witnesses, multiple studies have found that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, especially across racial lines. Look at how many cases have been found by the Innocence Project where a victim identified somebody but then dna exonerated them.

That said, he's almost certainly guilty and if convicted, should spend the rest of his days in prison and/or in a psychiatric facility if found to have been not sane during the commission of the crime.

I don't need to track all of them to notice which threads they show up in and which threads they don't.

just read when an "incident' such as this happens. My wake up call was Trayvon Martin, three year ago and haven't had to track a one. They always pop up and spout off.

There's no point threading the needle by pointing out that a suspect's not conclusively guilty when everybody's trying to exculpate him. Then the risky thing is to point out that he might actually be guilty. The point in that case is that others with more information will decide such things, but people take a beating for daring to suggest perhaps somebody declared innocent by DU public opinion might be guilty or at the very least not innocent.

That's the same point to be made in the flipped scenario. That the person who's being judged as completely guilty with no possible defense still deserves a defense and might, for reasons not evident to us given media reports, wind up declared not guilty. In other words, esp. on a board like this, the only thing to be gained with a rush to judgement is emotional satisfaction; the only thing to be gained with being cautious and trying to be fact-based is intellectual integrity.

Because we have to recite the catechism each time to make sure that our faith is judged pure by the Office for the Doctrine of the Faith, I'll add that I think Roof did what he did out of racial hatred. But at the same time, I'm going to hedge more than I did just a few hours ago and flirt with heresy. One "witness", I've learned since then, apparently is "current" with five-year-old information. More current acquaintances describe a different person, one that was spiraling possibly more than a bit out of control. What I don't know is more obvious and possibly pertinent than what I do know as far as how this is going to go at court.

Last edited Sat Jun 20, 2015, 10:59 PM - Edit history (3)

when an alleged perp is a POC. He's immediately labeled a thug, his/her record or infraction is immediately thrown out there as proof, and justification as to why they were killed and even if it's just smoking a joint, selling unlicensed cigarettes, owing child support/broken tailight, walking through the neighborhood wearing a hoodie while black, walking in the street and not moving out of it fast enough for the white cop, examining a toy gun in a walmart, playing with a toy gun in a park. Then there are comments, here and other sources like "she's no saint&quot MSM) "she was mouthing off", "not respecting her (white) elders" "resisting arrest" "presenting a threat" even while unarmed, that cover the privileged justification(s) of why 14 year old Darjerria Becton, Aiyana Jones, Rekia Boyd, Tarika Wilson, Duanna Johnson, Kayla Moore have been abused by police officers and/or are dead at the hands of white police officers who shot bullets into their unarmed bodies. And more and more private white citizens are murdering and assaulting POC with no consequence at all levied by juries of their peers. The obvious reason, in all these assaults and murders of POC, is the fact, she or he is black, and that reason is NEVER accepted by the apologists and privileged here and in the Main Sham Media. They just stretch themselves out of shape to explain away the usual racist implication(s) and causes of these executions and murders of POC by racist white persons by just saying they, the murders of unarmed people POC, were justified, blah, blah, blah. People with privilege can do that. That truth will be denied, I'm sure, and I can't wait to read the responses.

The Charleston Nine, Cynthia Hurd 54, Susie Jackson 87, Ethel Lance 70, Rev. Depayne Middleton-Doctor 49, The Honorable Rev Clementa Pinckney, State Senator 41, Tywanza Sanders 26, Rev. Danial Simmons 74, Rev. Sharonda Singleton 45, Myra Thompson 59, all accomplished and decent human beings were killed by this animal for no other reason than they were African-Americans and that admission came from the lips of this racist killer himself. "Don't jump to conclusions", "mentally ill", "spiraling out of control" "wait for the facts", "intellectual integrity"? BS and not needed as an excuse to continue the meme of justifying murder, execution and abuse of POC by many depraved, hateful and always privileged members of a racist culture.

Yeah it might not go as I WISH, that he's found guilty of a racist hate crime of multiple murders and killed the next week in the General Population yard of a state prison by many executioners. Give me the break. I deserve NOT to have to witness an example of white privilege as exhibited by your response and others on here who use "wait for the facts", "intellectual integrity", "caution" meme as an excuse to diminish the real reason(s) for racism which are white privilege lodged in and gained from a sordid, evil history of slavery and segregation, actual and defacto, as it is today in this country/culture, and fear of POC because of that history. It's truly a painful exhibition to have to endure. Yet is understood by me as an example of responses that are a part of a typical group of apologists for racists and their crimes on this forum and in Main Sham Media.

This week has brought back so much of the hate I and other POC have experienced since, just say the Birmingham Church Bombing in 1963 where four(4) young black children(girls) were killed. The hate has not stooped and since the Nixon/Atwater 'Southern Strategy' and Reagan, it's just been getting worse, like your "good old days". Can't continue.

hate has not stopped since 1963. I've been trying to discuss this with my advanced ESL sections this week (Thursday and Friday anyway), and we've had some lively discussions around the nexus of racism as 'mental illness' (requiring psychiatric treatment) vs. 'crime' (requiring incarceration\punishment). My foreign students, mostly white, take a much harder line on this than I do, all insisting adamantly that it is or should be a crime. Save for one physician from Colombia who has been trying to explain the 'mental illness' part. She has eloquently called in halting English for more hospitals and fewer prisons. But I'd like to think the deaths of the Charleston Nine have led to some new opportunities for international comradeship. At least something good might then have come from this affair. BTW, the Colombian physician is the only one thus far to call out the epidemic of private firearms ownership. I am often humbled before my students' insights and wisdom.

bravo on hearing international students are weighing in on our gun violence and racism issues vs generic(if I can)mental illness.

horrified and aghast at what took place in Charleston. But their international status distances them somewhat from the raw anger and grief that I, as an American, feel about this. At the risk of over-generalizing, most of them find our fixation on guns to be crazy and without justification.

so do I. No over generalization there.

read, seen, or heard anyone say anything about 'waiting for the facts' when referring to this terrible crime.

The media has strict guidelines on what can and cannot be said. Even when its obvious someone is guilty, they cant say it. Black or white...

Do you remember when a black man killed 2 white people (I'm talking about OJ simpson)? The media never referred to him as the killer. During his slow speed car chase, never was he called "the murderer" etc. Derp derp, try again. I hate having to defend the stupid media but you managed to make me do it.

The fact is the media are consistent in calling obviously guilty people "suspects" in all cases

My post was not about the media or OJ Simpson, in fact I am quite confident that the people I am talking about were not so insistent on "waiting for the facts" in the OJ case.

"We hear a lot from the "wait for the facts" crowd when a white person kills a black person

I never hear those people insisting we wait for the facts when a black person is accused of a crime however."

Thats what I was responding to, and the OJ case was my example.

I just didn't realize people hold random internet posters to some kind of standard... that's pretty interesting. I thought for sure the only ones you could possibly be referring to were the media.

If he objects, he can sue.

Would you say you are an "advocate" for accuracy in the media?

They don't want to be sued.

He's presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

and alleged... those are good media conventions actually.

And I prefer to let the legal system do what it needs to do.

currently in the news, to determine whether guilt is "obvious" enough to justify dropping the "alleged", without fear of any legal repercussions?

The legal counsels for these outlets probably see it as easier and safer to simply have a blanket policy of saying "alleged" prior to conviction.

It's not quite the same thing as knowing for a fact that he confessed

The fairest possible trial is also the way we could learn the most about how to prevent similar attacks.

He's not guilty. Let's find out exactly what he did, how and why.

Sometimes, in the case of a highly publicized crime, some mentally ill people who didn't actually do it come forward and falsely confess.

In this instance, based on my casual acquaintance with the evidence through news media reports, I have no doubt that he did it and that his motivation was racism.

Nevertheless, if I were running a media outlet, I would establish a blanket rule for all crime reporting: It doesn't matter how strong the evidence appears to be, and it doesn't matter whether the people involved (shooter and victims, in this instance) are black or white, we call the suspect a suspect and we use "alleged" unless and until there's a criminal conviction or plea.

The alternative is that the media outlet has to establish an internal tribunal to weigh all the evidence and decide whether, in this particular case, the evidence is strong enough to drop the "alleged" and flatly state that he did it. Why should a newspaper or TV station go through that hassle? Just present the objective facts. If it's so damn obvious (as in the Charleston case) then the readers or viewers will know the truth without our having to spoon-feed it to them.

Confession isn't enough in a court of law. If he's found guilty by a jury, then they can say "the killer" when talking about Roof.

Murder conviction overturned for, as on Justice put it - "trial by newspaper"

Defendant was acquitted at second trial.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheppard_v._Maxwell

correct, if not, until a jury convicts he is alleged, unless you want the law changed from presumed innocence to presumed guilt

Little bit of information for you

"Astonishingly, more than 1 out of 4 people wrongfully convicted but later exonerated by DNA evidence made a false confession or incriminating statement."

So of course the media should treat him as not-guilty.

You need to wait for a conviction.

Even the Boston Marathon bomber was called "alleged" and "suspect" until convicted.

You either haven't been paying attention to how the media deals with unconvicted people or you are looking for a reason to be mad at the media.

Fail.

CNN is now referring to him as the confessed murderer