[Salgak]

It’s a legalism. Until convicted by a court of law, the press has to refer to him as the “alleged” or “suspected” killer. . .

[a fool in paradise]

It’s a legalism. Until convicted by a court of law, the press has to refer to him as the “alleged” or “suspected” killer. . .

They do it when the shooters are killed at the scene too. There are no trials for dead people. They will always be "alleged" under that worldview.

Call a spade a spade.

[Oldexpat]

They don’t need to identify him by anything but his name. Everybody knows it now..so they imply neither guilt or innocence.

[Atlas Sneezed]

It’s a legalism. Until convicted by a court of law, the press has to refer to him as the “alleged” or “suspected” killer. . .

---

Forgive me, but I never studied “Has-To Law” in law school.

Is this a federal law, state law, administrative rule, or are you just an amateur making stuff up?

[OldNavyVet]

"Until convicted by a court of law, the press has to refer to him as the “alleged” or “suspected” killer. . ."

That is modern-day doublespeak. Newspapers, etc., worried about taking heat over reporting factual truth aren't worth reading.

[Talisker]

It’s a legalism. Until convicted by a court of law, the press has to refer to him as the “alleged” or “suspected” killer. . .

What nonsense. Not even the most cautious media legal protection would require such absurd restraint in this situation. Stop trying to get people to accept enforced stupidity.

[DrewsMum]

“Until convicted by a court of law, the press has to refer to him as the “alleged” or “suspected” killer. . .”

Does this pertain to military court also?