Shortly after a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday, city leaders began looking into whether the officer had violated state criminal law.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said, “We collectively are going to do everything possible to get to the bottom of this, to get justice, and to make sure that there is an investigation that is conducted in full.” Police Chief Brian O’Hara followed up by saying that the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is “investigat[ing] whether any state laws within the state of Minnesota have been violated.”
If they conclude that state law has been violated, the question is: What next? Contrary to recent assertions from some federal officials, states can prosecute federal officers for violating state criminal laws, and there is precedent for that.
He’s a murderer, not a shooter.
The media can’t legally say “murder” unless/until there’s a conviction. So it’s either “alleged murderer” or “shooter”, and they definitely chose of the two, the one that ‘safely’ implies more guilt.
One can’t really reasonably fault them for that choice, if one believes in his guilt, which you obviously do.
Yup, and it’s generally “alleged murderer” only after they’ve been charged.
Knowing how the media uses these terms helps understand where along the line things are in terms of the justice system. If I read “murder” I’d assume the guy has been convicted (so justice is being served) because of the convention of not using that word until there’s a conviction. “Shooter” means he hasn’t even been charged, so I know there’s been no justice.
It wouldn’t be good for the media to imply justice has been served when in reality it hasn’t. So it’s good that they call him a shooter so those of us with media literacy know the situation accurately.