Why do news reports - at least at print - refer to the shooter as "suspect"

[question everything]

and talk about "allegedly?"

He confessed, he was on camera, there is nothing "allegedly" about his crime.

[riversedge]

1. imho--he has to be legally convicted in a court of law. But I have

wondered myself when I see those words--alleged or suspect ect

[Lindsay]

2. Yup. Until

he's been tried and found guilty, he's a suspect and the crimes are alleged. It's fairer to all suspects to use those forms, so we gotta put up with it even for those who've confessed.

[question everything]

4. Thanks. I understand that but it grates me when I read... (nt)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. He's presumed innocent (legally) until he is either tried

or enters a formal guilty plea - a confession to the police isn't enough. Yeah, we all know he did it, but one of the conventions of journalism is to use the terms "suspect" and "alleged" until there's been a formal adjudication of guilt. Doesn't bother me a bit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Because he has not been convicted

yes he confessed, but there is a history of coerced confessions, before rights are read, and without an attorney present. If any of these things happened that confession might (likely will) be inadmissible in court. Worst case scenario, a conviction under these conditions could be overturned by a higher court for violation of due process, or a good lawyer could stop a conviction at trial.

So if you call him guilty, you open yourself to liability. There is also the factor of not tainting the jury pool. I am sure you have heard the term tried in the media.

This is just the short notes in this. Hope it helps.