When I see reports of people being beaten or cars being stolen...

[Bretrick]

it is always reported as; Allegedly.
The person was beaten, the car was stolen, the latest one I read, (background) a male threw a homemade bomb into a crowd at a rally in Perth.
Reported as; a 31-year-old man allegedly threw a homemade fragment bomb into the crowd.
There is video evidence showing him throwing the bomb, allegedly does not come into it.

 

[George1959]

Exactly this 'allegedly' causes much anger in Germany. A week ago a man from South Sudan pushed an 18 year old woman from Iran on the track of the metro in Hamburg and jumped behind her. Both were killed. Many people did watch this heinous crime and it was recorded by cameras. But he allegedly did this. What a B.S.

 

[Bretrick]

Exactly this 'allegedly' causes much anger in Germany. A week ago a man from South Sudan pushed an 18 year old woman from Iran on the track of the metro in Hamburg and jumped behind her. Both were killed. Many people did watch this heinous crime and it was recorded by cameras. But he allegedly did this. What a B.S.

Criminal defence lawyers are to blame.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty" The video shows the guilt; it should not need to go to trial.
But then the defence lawyer would not get paid. The whole thing is a scam.

 

[Aunt Bea]

I understand what you are saying but with the rise of AI, allegedly may become more and more important.

 

[smiley]

the law of the jungle would write out legally and juste maybe take savage action?

 

[Jazzy1]

Crimes are reported as "allegedly committed" to uphold the legal principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

Legal Presumption of Innocence: Everyone is considered innocent until a court confirms guilt, regardless of evidence or eyewitness accounts.

The term "allegedly" is typically dropped only after a defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty by a judge or jury.

 

[Bretrick]

Crimes are reported as "allegedly committed" to uphold the legal principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

Legal Presumption of Innocence: Everyone is considered innocent until a court confirms guilt, regardless of evidence or eyewitness accounts.

The term "allegedly" is typically dropped only after a defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty by a judge or jury.

My personal opinion, if there is irrefutable video evidence then the perp should be immediately imprisoned. Sent before a judge as soon as possible and be given the set prison term for that offence.

 

[Been There]

The word “alleged” or “allegedly” is used by the news to avoid libel lawsuits, as well.
I have seen eyewitnesses be wrong in their assumption of who shot, knifed or strangled someone. I watch crime shows every now and then and in one show, the person that was arrested and charged for allegedly killing an older lady on his street had spent 14 years in prison. When DNA testing came out, he was found not to be the killer and was set free.

The older lady’s niece was 100% certain that the person she picked out in the lineup was the killer. She saw the killer leaving the scene as she was arriving to visit her aunt.

 

[WheatenLover]

Criminal defence lawyers are to blame.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty" The video shows the guilt; it should not need to go to trial.
But then the defence lawyer would not get paid. The whole thing is a scam.

I was a criminal defense lawyer, and I do not agree with you. Video or not, the guy has not been yet been proven guilty by the government. In civilized countries, the defendant would be arrested and tried in a court of law. This is as opposed to being hanged, beaten with a cane, or killed by a bunch of masked thugs.

As to the word "alleged": If someone is alleged to have committed a crime, s/he would not have been found guilty in a court of law YET (or maybe would not be found guilty). Perhaps the allegation is published and the defendant is found not guilty. Hello lawsuit for defamation. Without "alleged", the civil defendant has made a statement of fact and the former criminal defendant is not guilty -- perfect since the proven truth of a statement is the defense against a lawsuit for defamation.

If in committing the crime, the alleged perpetrator has died, he is still alleged to have done the crime. No trial, no admitting guilt, no fact exists since dead guys can't be tried or admit to anything. At that point, his family would be the ones to sue for the defamation of their loved one.

From Cornell Law School:

presumption of innocence​

A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty. As such, a prosecutor is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime if that person is to be convicted. To do so, proof must be shown for every single element of a crime. That being said, a presumption of innocence does not guarantee that a person will remain free until their trial has concluded. In some circumstances, a person can be held in custody.
The presumption of innocence is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. However, through statutes and court decisions - such as the U.S. Supreme Court case of Taylor v. Kentucky - it has been recognized as one of the most basic requirements of a fair trial.

presumption of innocence

 

[ohioboy]

Criminal defence lawyers are to blame.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty" The video shows the guilt; it should not need to go to trial.
But then the defence lawyer would not get paid. The whole thing is a scam.

What you see if maybe not what you get. A trial is needed to determine the "Mens Rea" of the person to calculate a specific charge. What state of mind was the defendant in when he committed the crime?

Section 2901.22 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws

 

[Rider77]

We live a quiet life, going where we like and doing things on our own schedule. I have always been one to be self aware of things around me. In a restaurant I like to be seated by a wall with a view of the exit. In a parking lot I watch for others who might be approaching me. When I'm inside a building I don't want anyone walking very closely behind me.

I know what is said my sociologist about phobias, I'm probably deserve those comments. Fact is I'm 77 now and have been to some very dangerous places in our world, I didn't get this old without my own form of caution.