From: jecorbett4@gmail.com   
      
   We have a participant on this newsgroup who is of the opinion that without a   
   criminal conviction, it is wrong declare a dead person guilty of crimes they   
   committed while living. In another thread, Hank brought up several mass   
   shooters who died immediately following the carnage they carried out. Since   
   we don't put dead people on trial, does that mean we can't conclude they   
   committed mass murder?   
      
   It is typical that these people are not taken alive. Either they turn the guns   
   on   
   themselves or they force the cops to kill them. The most recent example was   
   the mass shooter in Maine who was found dead from a self inflicted gunshot   
   wound. The list of such killers is long. Hank mentioned Charles Whitman, Eric   
   Harris, and Dylan Klebold. We also have the shooters at Virginia Tech, Sandy   
   Hook, Las Vegas, and Uvalde just to name of few. Are all these people   
   entitled to the presumption of innocence? Can we not conclude these people   
   committed atrocities even though none of them stood trial for their crimes?   
   Should we be required to refer to them as accused killers? It is a ridiculous   
   proposition.   
   When there is clear evidence that these people committed murder, there is   
   no reason to use the qualifier "accused". John Wilkes Booth was the assassin   
   of Abraham Lincoln and Lee Harvey Oswald was just as surely the assassin   
   of John Kennedy.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)