Pipebomber and ridiculous PC

[Guest]

On the news the other day they said "Lucas Helder has been charged with alleged bomb planting...". So does one have to be convicted of an alleged crime before one can be charged of an actual crime? For god's sake, the guy confessed, and he was found with all the materials in his car! If it were my news show, I would have just said "Confessed pipebomber Lucas Helder was formally charged with the crime today...".

And what about the other thread in this forum describing what he did as "tampering with a mailbox"?? That sound like some kids putting shaving cream in a neighbor's mailbox! Wouldn't "Reprehensible attempted murder" be a more accurate description??

[Guest RushNY]

Even though he may have been caught red handed spilled his guts and confessed he actualy hasn't been CONVICTED of anything yet thats where people have to be careful its just with Americas "who do i sue"victim culture reaching epidemic and frankly ludicrous(sp) levels organizations are afraid to say or do anything that will get them on the end of a huge lawsuit.

 

But hey thats anoher thread all together...

[Guest Spunk]

I don't feel that this is a case of "ridiculous PC." He has not been convicted of any crime. It might turn out different than you seem to expect. There really is very little that is truly known by the general public about this young man and his apparent actions.

 

While I agree that the States is full of "ridiculous PC" I don't think that you've selected a good example.

[Guest Musclebearshare]

>On the news the other day they said "Lucas Helder has been

>charged with alleged bomb planting...".

 

I think that's just bad English. You don't get charged with an "alleged" crime. They could say, "Lucas Helder, the alleged pipebomber,...", which is what he is until convicted, or as you said, "confessed pipebomber." You might reconsider where you get your news.

 

Michael

[Guest jatlbi]

remember richard jewel? he was alleged. everyone was ready to string him up and, lo and behold, he was innocent.

 

i wish my life was such that the biggest bug up my butt was that the mainstream media didn't refer to someone as guilty of a crime until they were actually committed.

[+ deej]

If that's what they really said (alleged crime?), then I agree you should reconsider where you get your news. That's just sloppy copy writing.

 

There are media outlets that, sadly, go the opposite direction. There was a large explosion in a downtown highrise here recently. The local TV station's "on the scene" coverage was rife with speculation about possible terrorism. In the end, it ended up being a propane tank at a jeweler that exploded due to improper handling.

 

Remember the explosion in Manhattan recently? There were news reports of a chemical threat and a building collapse. In the end, there was no collapse and early reports even had the wrong building!

 

For every example of overboard PC, you'll find matching examples where a little more restraint would have been proper.

[Guest]

What I felt was ridiculous was saying he was charged with an "alleged crime." One gets charged with a crime, not an alleged crime. When one is charged with a crime, one is being alleged of having committed the crime. Although he may be cleared on the basis of insanity (he does seem quite psychotic), he obviously did the deed. Of course, the US legal system suposedly considers someone innocent until proven guilty, although I feel that's a bit of sophistry. He is being held without bail, after all. I'm innocent of the crime. Why shouldn't I be locked up, too? He's locked up because everyone, including the judge, knows he planted those bombs, and that he's a whacko.