Really? It's responsible journalism to refer to someone who got shot as a suspect, just because the person who shot him accuses him of a crime? Seems to me the responsible thing to do would be to interview both people (shooter and "recipient of bullet," and report on what those people said. Then the "recipient of the news" can determine for itself what to think.USMC - Retired said:While the use of the word "Victim" may be technically correct, it is none the less still wrong from a responsible journalism perspective. The liberal media use the word victim to imply that this criminal had his rights violated. Consider it this way, they would not have used the same verbiage if the perp had been shot by a cop in the same situation. They would call him the "suspect" or at the very least "alleged perpetrator"
Again, really? I don't draw that inference (i.e., that the "criminal" -- what happened to innocent until proven guilty? -- had his rights violated). I conclude that he was shot. Again, I don't know if the shooting was justified. I would like to think the matter will be investigated and, if appropriate, run through our justice system, to determine things like that. In the meantime, I'm perfectly content to have the recipient of the bullet referred to as a gun shot victim (which is exactly what he will be referred to in his medical records, because health care workers don't generally make political statements when they chart such things).The liberal media use the word victim to imply that this criminal had his rights violated.
Seems to me that the police are the ones telling he press that this guy was breaking the law and thusly a criminal. Once again I point out that if it had been a LEO that shot this guy he would not be refered to as a "victim" by the press regardless of Websters definition of the word.A man who attempted to rob a DeKalb County pawn shop was in stable condition Tuesday after being shot by an employee, a police spokesman said.
The 21-year-old man, armed with a knife, entered Evans Mill Pawn Shop and tried to hold up the store Tuesday morning, Dekalb County police Officer Herschel Grangent said. The man attacked one of the store's employees, who pulled out a gun and shot the man several times, Grangent said.
Fortunately, we live in a society where the police don't get to decide who is a criminal and who is not.USMC - Retired said:Seems to me that the police are the ones telling he press that this guy was breaking the law and thusly a criminal.
Well, actually, the story says he came in with the knife and the pawn shop owner did not shoot him until he was "attacked" by the robber. That is, he did not shoot him for "having a knife." Nor did he shoot him for robbing. All indications at this point are that he shot him in a desperate extreme - attempting to avoid a stab or slice wound.jrm said:What if someone went into a pawn shop and was interested in pawning a knife, and the clerk pulled out a gun and shot the knife pawner? Then the clerk told police that the pawner pulled a knife, so he shot the pawner.
Nothing happened to it. That is a jury standard.jrm said:Again, really? I don't draw that inference (i.e., that the "criminal" -- what happened to innocent until proven guilty?)
Don't forget humans "causing" global warming (despite millions of years of climate changes when humans did not exist). Any computer simulation of events 50 - 100 years from now goes to the press a prediction of the future instead of correctly stating that it is a simulation of what might happen IF everything entered into the model were to be 100% correct from now until then (that is assuming they even got the model correct to enter the data into).It is not just firearms. The same thing happens when covering anything connected to "Islam." It often happens on issues of race as well. Sometimes news articles tell outright lies. More often, though, the approach is subtle, such as referring to an armed robber as a "victim" once the robbery "victim" defends himself.
I disagree. It is a legal standard that applies to all (not just juries). It applies to judges. It applies to prosecutors. It applies to witnesses. It even applies to plaintiffs and defendants in a civil defamation case (as in, when the plaintiff sues the defendant for branding the plaintiff a criminal when the defendant has not been convicted of a crime).Malum Prohibitum said: