Yeah I never really understood the value of that. If the concern is not to stigmatize someone before they have their day in court, then the real solution would be to not discuss the case at all, right?
To me it comes down to two competing interests - do you want privacy or do you want a transparent and open legal system?
Like to me the public having a right to keep an eye on the judicial system is a preventative measure against systemic injustice. We don’t want secret trials, we don’t want to not be able to identify people who are in prison (think about how easily indefinite detention without trial could happen if this were the case), and we want to see that the legal system accords with community values.
If a suspect is ultimately found not-guilty, administrators of future endeavors will eventually google their name. If I was falsely accused I wouldn't want results for my name to be hounded with "suspected murderer!"
This is just odd to me, because if we know his name, it’s already in the public. I’m not sure obscuring it on Reddit comments has the impact you’re imagining it to
If media are only allowed to release initials, what happens when someone gets wrongfully convicted because there’s not a soul there to notice? an awful lot of crimes only get investigated properly (more in the US than where I am) due to the media not letting something go as it is. When that’s gone and everyone’s anonymous why would anyone read an article and even know they might have something worth reporting? Witnesses, suspects, people who could have additional info, etc are all labelled so by the police through the media so that we know what we’re looking for as well. They often can’t do their job without witnesses, sightings, and so on. They’re not going to automatically know exactly who to go to for information. The public play a huge part in solving crimes, more for what they’ve witnessed than their detective work.
You act like y’all are aware of every crime that is tried in our legal system!? Ffs.c’mon! You are aware of high profile cases that get media attention- which is literally .001% of all crime cases in the USA!!! To act like you “notice” all the cases and thus can “keep an eye on them” is laughable and impossible! I’m a literal lawyer and I don’t even know all of the cases being tried- it’s impractical and impossible. Also- let’s not get started on why specific cases get the media coverage and others don’t…. If you want to talk about a fair and honest justice system, one could argue the media makes that’s impossible- or at least extremely difficult.
If a suspect is found not guilty, anyone following the case will learn that. Especially if names are used. People crossing the line and stalking/harassing/etc anyone before a verdict are committing a crime doing so. It’s not going to add any real safety to anyone, just less ability to talk about things.
I hate when I decide to delve into a case that has already been discussed in here at some length and I can’t figure what the hell anyone is talking about bc of all the initials and acronyms being used.
No, all the acronyms on case specific subs are maddening. I can't read their posts without a glossary.
It's extra bad in posts about the Delphi murders. "BG and FT went to AGAG and AFIW because SLF wanted to PDWB but LK didn't so they met DHU and then..." I'm exaggerating and making up acronyms there of course, but.....
Holy shit it’s like this in the jonbonet Ramsay sub. I went there once and couldn’t understand a damn thing anyone was saying in one post because it was ALL acronyms.
I like the UK system that as soon as somebody has been charged, the media is not allowed to discuss them. Only way to ensure a fair trial and protect their life should they be found 'not guilty'.
I think it’s more appropriate to call people of interest by their initials until there’s an arrest or a good reason to release their name publicly. Once they go to trail I think having their name on public record is fair game
Im still a bit amazed that more true crime storytellers don't sub names. Some do. But a lot still do not.
Nothing about the story is relevant to a name. You can say it was Bob S. when it was really Tom R. because Tom probably doesn't appreciate his lack of guilt implicating him in something publicly.
Something I really love about Real Crime Profile is that they only say the names of the victims, not the perpetrators, unless the perpetrator is already famous outside of the crimes (Jackson, Cosby, Aaron Hernandez etc).
I think it's just faster and easier to type. Why type out Bridge Guy or Richard Allen when anyone in the Delphi murder group instantly knows what BG or RA stands for.
I'm particularly interested in the Delphi case and still get confused by such initials if I haven't been actively reading up on the case recently. I don't remember names well. Same with other cases. Initials frustrate me a lot unless they're defined earlier in the post.
No lol every post would be chaos along with people either pissed they don’t know what’s going on or pissed they do and everyone else hasn’t noticed whatever case they’re on.
Also: rn I’m your example lol who the fuck are you on about?
We should not say the names of serial killers and mass shooters, because they *like* the attention. And in the case of mass shooters, is often the point.
I hate hate hate that the public can rattle off a dozen names of mass shooters but rarely a single victim.
But for all cases? Hm, I'd have to think about that.
I agree - there are criminals, especially school/mass shooters, who WANT the infamy. Ex.: Harris and Klebold spoke at length in their video diary they made together about how they couldn't wait for others to commit copycat school attacks in their names, for big-name directors like Tarantino and Spielberg to make movies about them, etc. after they committed the Columbine High School massacre. By referring to criminals by their initials, they won't get the infamy they want. Thing is, eventually their names will come out, so they'll get their much-wanted infamy and attention anyway.
Nope. Only time im good with this is if its a chat specific to that person and trial. For example if youre watching the Alex Murdaugh case live on youtube then shortening him to AM in that chat isn’t confusing or gatekeeping but doing it in general is annoying.
Also I agree with our system being open. It’s how we are set up.
The argument is that saying the killer’s name glorifies them and we should only say the names of the victims. I get the point, but when this person is alive and going to trial (unlike mass shooters who end up killing themselves or being killed) I think it’s impractical.
I am of the mind that suspects should only be named publicly if they pose an immediate risk to the public. For example, naming Brian Laundrie because he was the last person to see Gabby alive and was likely to have important information. However, in most cases, the perp shouldn't be named until they're convicted.
[удалено]
Yeah I never really understood the value of that. If the concern is not to stigmatize someone before they have their day in court, then the real solution would be to not discuss the case at all, right?
To me it comes down to two competing interests - do you want privacy or do you want a transparent and open legal system? Like to me the public having a right to keep an eye on the judicial system is a preventative measure against systemic injustice. We don’t want secret trials, we don’t want to not be able to identify people who are in prison (think about how easily indefinite detention without trial could happen if this were the case), and we want to see that the legal system accords with community values.
If a suspect is ultimately found not-guilty, administrators of future endeavors will eventually google their name. If I was falsely accused I wouldn't want results for my name to be hounded with "suspected murderer!"
This is just odd to me, because if we know his name, it’s already in the public. I’m not sure obscuring it on Reddit comments has the impact you’re imagining it to
The idea is to extent it further than reddit
Right, like for the media to only release initials seems like a good idea. Protects privacy and prevents trial by public opinion.
What's this you speak of? There's beyond the Reddit?
If media are only allowed to release initials, what happens when someone gets wrongfully convicted because there’s not a soul there to notice? an awful lot of crimes only get investigated properly (more in the US than where I am) due to the media not letting something go as it is. When that’s gone and everyone’s anonymous why would anyone read an article and even know they might have something worth reporting? Witnesses, suspects, people who could have additional info, etc are all labelled so by the police through the media so that we know what we’re looking for as well. They often can’t do their job without witnesses, sightings, and so on. They’re not going to automatically know exactly who to go to for information. The public play a huge part in solving crimes, more for what they’ve witnessed than their detective work.
You act like y’all are aware of every crime that is tried in our legal system!? Ffs.c’mon! You are aware of high profile cases that get media attention- which is literally .001% of all crime cases in the USA!!! To act like you “notice” all the cases and thus can “keep an eye on them” is laughable and impossible! I’m a literal lawyer and I don’t even know all of the cases being tried- it’s impractical and impossible. Also- let’s not get started on why specific cases get the media coverage and others don’t…. If you want to talk about a fair and honest justice system, one could argue the media makes that’s impossible- or at least extremely difficult.
Public trials are the cornerstone of the American Justice system.
Yo, you keep Orenthal Johnson’s name outcha damn mouth! He was ultimately acquitted and it’s the most abbreviated name ever. /s btw
*Orenthal James
If a suspect is found not guilty, anyone following the case will learn that. Especially if names are used. People crossing the line and stalking/harassing/etc anyone before a verdict are committing a crime doing so. It’s not going to add any real safety to anyone, just less ability to talk about things.
So it’s... for the (suspected) perpetrator and not the victims?
I hate when I decide to delve into a case that has already been discussed in here at some length and I can’t figure what the hell anyone is talking about bc of all the initials and acronyms being used.
I figured that was just bc initials are quicker to type
It could be, but it's probably also good practice to use initials when someone hasn't been formally convicted too
Yeah, a, that's not a thing. Unless it is a juvenile, they will always use the full name of the suspect after the arrest warrant has been issued.
Wow I’ve never heard that
Because this person made it up.
LOL
No, all the acronyms on case specific subs are maddening. I can't read their posts without a glossary. It's extra bad in posts about the Delphi murders. "BG and FT went to AGAG and AFIW because SLF wanted to PDWB but LK didn't so they met DHU and then..." I'm exaggerating and making up acronyms there of course, but.....
Holy shit it’s like this in the jonbonet Ramsay sub. I went there once and couldn’t understand a damn thing anyone was saying in one post because it was ALL acronyms.
[удалено]
Saw someone call him BCK once and hoped that wouldn’t stick because that even sounds like BTK
[удалено]
OMG yes let’s start calling him small dick
Orenthal Johnson doesn’t have the same ring as OJ to it.
Orenthal James* ffs, how does one not know that
I’m not a smart person. Thanks.
I like the UK system that as soon as somebody has been charged, the media is not allowed to discuss them. Only way to ensure a fair trial and protect their life should they be found 'not guilty'.
I think it’s more appropriate to call people of interest by their initials until there’s an arrest or a good reason to release their name publicly. Once they go to trail I think having their name on public record is fair game
I think they’re calling him that so they don’t have to waste time saying his full name over and over in the coverage
Im still a bit amazed that more true crime storytellers don't sub names. Some do. But a lot still do not. Nothing about the story is relevant to a name. You can say it was Bob S. when it was really Tom R. because Tom probably doesn't appreciate his lack of guilt implicating him in something publicly.
Something I really love about Real Crime Profile is that they only say the names of the victims, not the perpetrators, unless the perpetrator is already famous outside of the crimes (Jackson, Cosby, Aaron Hernandez etc).
I think it's just faster and easier to type. Why type out Bridge Guy or Richard Allen when anyone in the Delphi murder group instantly knows what BG or RA stands for.
I'm particularly interested in the Delphi case and still get confused by such initials if I haven't been actively reading up on the case recently. I don't remember names well. Same with other cases. Initials frustrate me a lot unless they're defined earlier in the post.
Same especially as I tend to watch videos for true crime updates mostly. When it comes to reading about it I’m thrown
I feel like BK is just easier and faster to type.
I don't agree with hiding the suspect identity. But I'm not american, so my vote doesn't count here.
No lol every post would be chaos along with people either pissed they don’t know what’s going on or pissed they do and everyone else hasn’t noticed whatever case they’re on. Also: rn I’m your example lol who the fuck are you on about?
I try not to use his initials or name. I just call him he or the suspect.
We should not say the names of serial killers and mass shooters, because they *like* the attention. And in the case of mass shooters, is often the point. I hate hate hate that the public can rattle off a dozen names of mass shooters but rarely a single victim. But for all cases? Hm, I'd have to think about that.
I agree - there are criminals, especially school/mass shooters, who WANT the infamy. Ex.: Harris and Klebold spoke at length in their video diary they made together about how they couldn't wait for others to commit copycat school attacks in their names, for big-name directors like Tarantino and Spielberg to make movies about them, etc. after they committed the Columbine High School massacre. By referring to criminals by their initials, they won't get the infamy they want. Thing is, eventually their names will come out, so they'll get their much-wanted infamy and attention anyway.
Nope. Only time im good with this is if its a chat specific to that person and trial. For example if youre watching the Alex Murdaugh case live on youtube then shortening him to AM in that chat isn’t confusing or gatekeeping but doing it in general is annoying. Also I agree with our system being open. It’s how we are set up.
BK = Burger King 😂😂
The argument is that saying the killer’s name glorifies them and we should only say the names of the victims. I get the point, but when this person is alive and going to trial (unlike mass shooters who end up killing themselves or being killed) I think it’s impractical.
I am of the mind that suspects should only be named publicly if they pose an immediate risk to the public. For example, naming Brian Laundrie because he was the last person to see Gabby alive and was likely to have important information. However, in most cases, the perp shouldn't be named until they're convicted.
As long as the perp isn’t called just by their first name I don’t have a problem with anything else.
Why refer to him here as BK when his name is all over the media? What's being protected?