ALLEGEDLY Shot At Police???

Brisco · May 29, 2011

Looking for the link to Cheris Walgreen story a minute ago, I ran into this video:

Deadly Police Shootout Caught on Tape | Video - ABC News

Below the video it is titled:

Deadly Police Shootout Caught on Tape

Wisconsin police fire at suspect who allegedly shot at them during traffic stop.

I know the word "Allegedly" was a term Lawyers demanded news outlets start using when they were covering stories about criminals due to the "Innocent until Proven Guilty in a Court of Law" right they have.

But, come on........this is NOT the place to be using the word "allegedly".

Yeah, I see it clearly.........the guy is innocent until proven guilty. He is "allegedly" firing his weapon at a Cop, isn't he???

Thank Gawd those Officers were crack shots. No wasting our Courts time on convicting this guy who is "allegedly" shooting at these Cops, right. Street Justice was served...............

Turtle · May 29, 2011

Well, you can replace "allegedly" with "reportedly" or "appeared to have", but the innocent until proven guilty thing isn't just for a court of law, as many people believe. You can be sued for libel or slander if you omit the qualifier, even in the case shown in the video, even if someone ends up being found guilty at a later date.

In the case of the video, he may have had blanks in there, so to flatly state that he shot at the police would be incorrect. Even though he's dead and cannot sue, his relatives or state still could, and they'd win.

Also, after watching the video, I can't help but wonder if a visit to the practice range is in order for the ones allegedly shooting back.

LDB · May 29, 2011

Blanks or bullets, it's still shooting. I wouldn't wait to see if it was blanks.

Pakrat · May 30, 2011

Point a gun at me and make it go boom.....I'm not gonna check for holes or wait until a bullet hits me before I shoot back.

Can you say "double tap"?

"Let's Roll"

Turtle · May 30, 2011

LDB said:
Blanks or bullets, it's still shooting. I wouldn't wait to see if it was blanks.

Well, I wouldn't wait, either. And be it blanks or bullets, while both are indeed shooting, you cannot shoot blanks "at" someone, hence "allegedly" when stating "Wisconsin police fire at suspect who allegedly shot at them during traffic stop."

The point of the thread was not whether the cops were justified at shooting back, but whether the use of the word "allegedly" should be used in reporting the incident.

pjjjjj · May 30, 2011

Turtle said:
.... You can be sued for libel or slander if you omit the qualifier, even in the case shown in the video, even if someone ends up being found guilty at a later date.

I always thought that it wasn't libel or slander if it was true?

Brisco · May 30, 2011

Turtle said:
The point of the thread was not whether the cops were justified at shooting back, but whether the use of the word "allegedly" should be used in reporting the incident.

Ding Ding Ding Ding......and Turtle finally made some sense here.

What you said prior lacked common sense, of which Lawyers have thrown out with the bath water when it comes to articulating on how certain words can and cannot be used.

The word "allegedly" should NOT have been used to label that video, Period.

Turtle · May 30, 2011

pjjjjj said:
I always thought that it wasn't libel or slander if it was true?

Yes. It's not libel or slander if it is is true, and you can prove it is true. If you're sued for libel for leaving out the word "allegedly" when reporting some crime, your libel case may end up being adjudicated long before the crime in question gets settled. It's not about what might be proved in a later criminal trial, it's what you can prove right now during your own trial. You could be found guilty today in your trial, even if the suspect is found guilty a year or two from now in their trial. So it turns out you were right, but you didn't prove it when you needed to.

That very thing happened to a TV reporter in Cincinnati back in the early 70s, and it was a case we studied in journalism class in high school. The TV reporter was found guilty of slander three years before the criminal trial even began. After the trial ended and the suspect was found guilty, the TV reporter appealed his decision, but lost his appeal.

Turtle · May 30, 2011

Brisco said:
The word "allegedly" should NOT have been used to label that video, Period.

I'm glad you're not on the editorial or legal team of ABC News.

Reporters are creatures of habit, anyway, and have been conditioned to use it without thinking, but I know if I were the one reporting the story, I'd have used allegedly. It's better to have used it and not wish ya had, than to have not used it and wish ya did. Doing it the first way gets people on EO laughing at 'em, but doing it the the second way costs 'em career, money, home, girlfriend, and probably their dog. I'd hate to lose my dog over a mental mistake like that.