Man electrocuted while "allegedly" stealing wiring (HOUMA, LA)

[Home Guy]

What gets me is that the AP feels some sort of idiosyncratic need to report that this guy was "allegedly" trying to steal copper wire.

Would it kill them to NOT use the word "allegedly" in their reporting?

Could it be more obvious that he was absolutely trying to steal copper wire?

=========================================================

Man electrocuted while allegedly stealing wiring Posted: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT Updated: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT HOUMA, LA (AP) -

A 34-year-old man was electrocuted while allegedly breaking in to steal copper wiring.

According to the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff's Office, electric company workers found the body of Timothy Lewis of Houma after getting a call early Wednesday about lost power.

Lewis was pronounced dead at the scene.

A Houma newspaper reported Lewis broke through a fence at a substation there and was killed when he cut a ground line with a pair of wire cutters.

The death was still being investigated, though no foul play is suspected.

[.]

You're right it would not kill them to leave out the word allegedly. But the problem is this. Who then decides and on what criteria to leave the word out and accuse the guy of stealing? If they come to the wrong conclusion, they will be accuse of false reporting and potentially open to a lawsuit. I can see it taking a lot more time and money for the paper than it's worth. I would not want to be the guy deciding when to leave the word out.

=========================================================

>

[HeyBub]

Sigh. If only there were such a tort as "false reporting."

[Kurt Ullman]

Libel or slander was the reason we were told in J-School to use alleged until the jury returned and the gavel went down.

[Steve Barker]

I get sick of that word also.

[Steve B]

Allegedly covers all things, like hardly any radiation, or I only put the head in, Judge, I didn't rape her. And nothing was ever proven in a court of law, and no small farm animals were permanently damaged.

Steve

[Steve B]

What a job! Use "allegedly" and you can write anything, facts be damned. The only thing better is being a weatherman.

"According to predictions, the chance of rain tomorrow is 50%". (Meaning, it's going to rain tomorrow or not.) Either way, you get it right. Put me in front of a blue screen and give me $100k a year and bennies, and just let me have access to the Internet and Google, and I could be a decent weatherman. A $4 Salvation Army suit, a $75 used laptop, and a little George Carlin schtick, I could do it. Where do I apply?

Hey, Mannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. Al Sleet, your hippy dippy weathermannnnnnnnnnn..........................

Steve

[Home Guy]

The guy is dead. He's not going to sue.

And what's more, there will never be a determination (legal or otherwise) that he was infact trying to steal the wire. He'll never be tried or convicted of the crime.

The only public opportunity to label him or describe him as a thief, or to say in a public venue that he died while thieving, was lost.

[Larry W]

Just for the sake of argument, suppose the alleged wire thief was in fact murdered, and the murdered concocted a plot to kill him by electrocution, then cover it up br dragging his body into the substation, planting a pair of wire cutters on his body, and snipping some handy wire nearby?

[Home Guy]

I think this is what you're looking for:

Or perhaps, to put that another way:

"Murder, she wrote." is a fictional TV show.

[Kurt Ullman]

It covers things like not getting the paper or radio station sued. That is pretty much its only function in real life. But it is an important one. (g).

[Kurt Ullman]

His estate still can. I was actually sued once in my Glory Days as a reporter by a guy's estate.

[Home Guy]

This is why you guys (the USA) is going down the toilet.

Punative damage awards.

Some 2-bit piece of what trash dies while messing around in a power sub-station cutting live wires, and the media reporting the story is afraid that what's left of his family is going to sue them from their mobile home because they didn't use the word "allegedly" in their reporting.

They'll take them to court and sue for $10 million for some sort of crazy-ass "pain and suffering" and the jury (also composed of trash of one color or another) will give it to them.

Why did they sue you?

Because they wanted to rob you because they perceived you (or your employer) had deep pockets?

[Home Guy]

No.

The newspaper just prints a retraction the next day.

Freedom of the press. Free speech.

[Home Guy]

In Canada, we can do all 3. Not as many people choose to do #2.

Not only can we own land, no level of gov't can force us to sell our land to a private corporation for commercial use.

[Home Guy]

Considering what caused your last recession, and the number of vacant homes being canibalized, I'd say we're doing a better job here in Canada of owning land than you are.

[Kurt Ullman]

I always had liability insurance not so much so I could afford to lose. I had it more so I could afford to win. Even if they don't get the $10 million, I am still out $10,000s. The funny part is that the utility company is probably gonna get sued because they were negligent in securing the site or he wouldn't have had the opportunity to fry himself.

>

[George]

I am pretty sure the AP is not part of the judicial system.

Sure would save a lot of time in investigations and crimes if we could just turn to the AP and let them make the final pronouncement.

I don't know? Where you there? Have you reviewed the evidence? Should we always simply go with the trained forensic team from the local newspaper?

[George]

His estate can.

You are right. We should always run with whatever the local newspaper prints. That would sure save a lot of time for the police and the courts.

[Home Guy]

A journalist is supposed to report the facts of a story, and to describe the story in terms of how it's observed by a "reasonable person". Additionally, the concept of the "reasonable person" is well enshrined and used by law and the courts.

To a reasonable person, this was an attempted theft of copper wire.

Apparently it's your thesis that a reasonable person would NOT conclude that this guy was trying to steal copper wire through the act of breaking into the substation and using cutting tools. Perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative (but reasonable) explanation.

It would have to be proved in court that the newspaper (or some employee thereof) was intentionally "malicious" in their erroneous reporting. That maliciousness could take the form of financial gain, or could be the result of a pre-existing relationship between the object of the story (ie - the dead guy) and the newspaper.

Otherwise, if someone (the police, the family or estate of the dead guy) made new information available to explain how this was not attempted theft of copper wire, then the paper would or could simply print a retraction or addendum to their original story - especially because such new information would be newsworthy in it's own right given the circumstances.