Yes, they do. And here's why (btw, I was a newspaper journalist for more than 10 years - so I have some dated experience with this, but of course I am not a lawyer):steveincowtown wrote:“Wisconsin police fire at suspect who allegedly shot at them during traffic stop”
We live in a weird day in age. Does the news really need to say allegedly when the incident is on video and the suspect is dead?
We all know what we saw on video. But until something is adjudicated in a court of law (or at least stated without reservation/qualification by authorities, at which point "according to authorities" replaces "allegedly") then the news organization has no choice but to say "allegedly" to avoid potential libel suits. And remember, everyone KNOWS that the LAPD beat Rodney King and saw it on video - but they were acquitted. Everyone KNOWS OJ Simpson was guilty, but he was acquitted, etc etc.
Now, I agree a libel suit from a dead bad guy isn't likely. But just like we obey the Four Rules all the time every time without fail, a news reporter/editor must follow the "rules" of avoiding libel suits all the time every time without fail. Could be proven later that he was not firing at police but instead firing at his estranged ex wife/girlfriend who was near the police. Doesn't really change the police justification for returning fire, but If bad guy lives, or his mom wants revenge, then they bring up some trumped up libel lawsuit if firing at a girlfriend is a lesser charge than firing at police (or some other technicality). Again, not likely, but neither is it likely you'll shoot yourself in the leg and you still don't point the muzzle at your leg.
More often "allegedly" is helpful to deflect problems caused by other screw ups, like getting the bad guy's name wrong (which happens more than you'd think). In that case, you've now without question libeled the still alive non-bad guy. So by saying "allegedly" you at least have some protection (but not much) from the pending libel suit.