Ill. man killed trying to steal power lines

[Home Guy]

Finally, a headline writer with some guts/balls.

No namby-pamby use of the word "allegedly" here. Although the story itself does not say that the man died while trying to steal the power lines - which is disappointing.

-------------------------------

Ill. man killed trying to steal power lines

Posted 10/14/11 12:11 p.m.

ALTON, Ill. (WLS) - Authorities near Alton in southwestern Illinois are investigating the electrocution of a man whose body was found near snipped electrical power lines investigators believe he was trying to steal.

Madison County Coroner Stephen Nonn says 34-year-old Mark Becker of Granite City was found dead early Friday. Investigators believe he died Thursday night.

Nonn says evidence at the scene suggests that Becker made contact with charged overhead power lines after they had been cut from the utility pole.

The coroner says an investigation by Madison County sheriff's deputies and interviews with witnesses "failed to reveal any legitimate or lawful activity in which (Becker) would be engaged involving the utility infrastructure."

Nonn says an autopsy Friday confirmed that Becker was electrocuted.

[Robert Neville]

That's because dead people can't be libeled.

[Home Guy]

That was not given as a reason by others here when I started this thread back on August 4 where I point out the idiosyncratic use of the word "allegedly" in this media story:

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

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. ================================

Everyone here that was posted in defense of the use of the word "allegedly" was saying that it was done to protect the newspaper or newswire company from a lawsuit that could or would be launched by the dead criminal's family or estate.

[Han]

Robert Neville wrote in news: [e-mail]:

If you google that, you'll find it NOT universally true. Depends on state law. AT first glance, Texas and Rhode Island may be exceptions.

[Robert Neville]

Don't believe what "everyone" says or what you read on the internet. You might find this reference from Radford University Law interesting though:

Of particular interest is the fact that use of the word "allegedly" offers no legal protection - it's just being politically correct, and that while relatives of dead people can continue a libel suit, it's rarely possible start a suit if the target is already dead.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

how is "investigators believe he was trying to steal." any different from "allegedly"?

[Home Guy]

Who's saying that it is different? Or the same?

If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, you don't say that a duck alledgedly walked and sqawked. You say that a duck walked and squawked.

If you find some dead boob on the ground beside some cut power cables and cutting tools nearby in a facility that he had to break into, you don't be a namby pamby and say he was "allegedly" trying to steal the power cable. You say that he died while trying to steal the cable.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

who cares what the duck did?

of course there is always that niggling possibility that he actually heard noises in the facility, decided to investigate, stumbled upon the tools, scared off the real perps and somehow contacted the live power cable and electrocuted himself.

Odds are that your interpretation is spot on, but I hate it when conclusions are jumped to and that leads to not investigating other possibilities

[DerbyDad03]

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Even though every fiber of my being tells me not to, I'll defend Home Guy here.

He said: "Finally, a *headline writer* with some guts/balls."

In the vast majority of instances, the author of the article (e.g. the person who used the words "investigators believe") is not the same person who write the headlines.

Headlines are usually written by the copy editors as they piece the paper together, trying to fit everything onto the pages while grabbing your attention so that you'll buy their paper and/or hang around their website.

In this case, the copy editor had the sack to leave out the word "allegedly". In addition, the author simply regurgitated what the "investigators believe" and didn't write anything that could be considered libelous or non-libelous.

[Kurt Ullman]

You do if you want to avoid court. That is pretty much the first week of Communications Law in J-school. You say allegedly until the judge and/or jury says otherwise because if the judge and/or jury and/or the DA tosses out the charge the paper or station or individual can be sued.

[Steve B]

Where's the .jpg of him looking like burnt toast like a squirrel shorting out some three phase 440 lines?

Steve

[George]

Exactly, it is just common sense to investigate stuff rather than jumping to conclusions.

I am sure home guy would have no issues at all if say a sexual predator was hanging out by schoolyards and home guy just happened to be in the area and had spilled a milkshake on his pants so his picture was prominently featured on all of the news media that evening as the sexual predator. After all if it looks like a duck...

[George]

And unless you are omniscient you also do it if you have common sense. Often things are not what they appear to be.

[JIMMIE]

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Another way out is to quote "an unknown witness at the scene".

Jimmie

[trader4]

I think you might be going a bit far interpreting what the legal website means by saying that the word allegedly offers no legal protection. In the example given, they say that saying "She allegedly has aids" is the same thing as saying "She has aids."

I would agree that would seem correct if the pers "John was arrested for allegedly stealing wire."

I'd say that is very different from the reporter leaving out the word allegedly and writing:

"John was arrested for stealing wire"

The first statement is 100% true and that in and of itself eliminates any libel. The second is NOT ture because it states he actually stole the wire, which he may not have.

If the paper leaves out the word allegedly, then they have done exactly what your legal website says NOT to do:

"For instance, in reporting an arrest, one reports the fact of the arrest. One does not say "Joe Smith was arrested for committing arson, police said" but rather: "Police have charged Joe Smith with arson." Reporting the charge (not an arrest for something) is factually correct and is also ethical in that you do not presume guilt."

[Home Guy]

Your 2 statements above are never written that way.

You always find that the statements always go something like:

"A theft of wire was investigated by police. A suspect was being sought. John was taken into custody or John was arrested by police." Or "Police have made an arrest in a wire-theft case. Taken into custody was John."

Saying that "John was arrested for stealing wire" can be a true statement.

The police have to have a reason to arrest you. If John was taken into custody, then yes he was arrested, so that part is true. If he was arrested for stealing wire, then again that's true. It's up to the courts to decide if he really is guilty of stealing wire.

[micky]

What's wrong with having aids? Oh, AIDS!

Right, very good point.

Real my whole post before replying to this part.

You're making a good point, but I don't like the second part of your example. Saying he was arrested for stealing wire is not saying he actually stole the wire. Not unless it's agreed that the police only arrest guilty people, and even the police will tell you that's not so.

However I think papers are in the good habit of saying allegedly at almost every turn. It's easier to do that than to figure out each time whether it's needed or not.

In this one -- I haven't reviewed the one above again** -- I see two ways to read the sentence. He was arrested for arson because the police believe he committed arson, or he was arrested for the arson that he committed. Since readers coudl easily think of the second one and only t he second one, "allegedly" is a darn good idea.

**Oh, yeah your first example is just like the second one, in words, but for some reason I thought of my first kind of elaboration on the sentence and only that one. Not the second.

[micky]

Either it was by me, or I thought about it and didn't post, or I should have thought of it and didn't, or the guy wasn't dead. People did give the reason of libel suits, didn't they?

The fifth possibility is that they are in the habit of saying allegedly and it's easier to always do so than to make a choice each time, because assuredly they will eventually choose wrong and open themselves up to a libel suit when the guy can prove he's innocent.

In the US iirc, a successful libel suit has to show that the statements were false. In Britain, the alleged libeler has to show that the statements he made were true. Makes people accused of libel in England much more vulnerable Truth is a defense in both places bu the burden of proof is on the respondent in England.

[micky]

But being a duck and walking and squawking aren't bad things.

Whether it's libel or not, newspapers shouldn't say what they don't know. You think stealing is the only explanation, but there are always other ones. Maybe he was delusional and thought the electricty was being used by mind control experts who could listen to what was said in every home and business that the power line supplied, and could insert ideas in the heads of those who lived and worked there, and he was protecting them.

Or he was doing vandalism for political reasons, a miniature version of bombing a power plant.

Have you noticed that the TV, and even the radio often now use "believe" where they should be using "say"?

George Bush believes, Barak Obama beliieves. Probably not even their wives actually know what they believe, only what they say. Yesterday on NPR they interviewd a guy who uses freezing peoiple for a ver short time as a way to increase their stamina and the interviewer said he believes in it. He makes and sells the equipment, so oif course he

*says* it works. She should of just said "he said it works".

Reporters and people in general shouldn't say things they don't know.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

"I heard shouting, screaming and noises of a general kerfufle so being a good citizen/samaritan I decided to investigate and offer whatever help I could"

yes, because the first thing you are taugh in first aid class is to try and stabilize the "victim" and then call for help. But I guess you would rather lose those precious minutes?