Presumption of Guilt

Greetings, Sports Fans!!!

I must say that I've been very concerned about virtually EVERYONE'S having assumed the guilt of the very recent Las Vegas massacre suspect, Stephen Paddock. While it may be natural to suspect the guilt of an individual found with many weapons on the scene of the crime, there is no way to positively and unequivocally determine this immediately, nor does our American justice system permit this, with the key principle of "presumption of innocence." Moreover, even were this individual a "shooter," I cannot accept an immediate conclusion of no other snipers behind this terrible criminal offence. As a matter of fact, the sheer number of casualties and fatalities (some 500!!) suggests to me otherwise.

This definitely reflects a break from Critical Thinking, and--I'm pretty sure--counts as an example of fallacious thinking. It certainly is a common phenomenon, particularly in major cases, such as the O.J. Simpson case, in the nineties in Los Angeles (and the assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas, in 1963).

One component of this. seems to me...is an assumption of guilt based on a very high level seriousness of the given crime. We see this all the time in impressive courtroom drama, in which the prosecuting attorney or D.A. demands of the jury conviction of the suspect...who is..." a BEAST, and clearly the author of this terribly heinous crime!!!"

Then, too, components may be related to "appeal to emotion" and an "appeal to authority" if the police, mayor or D.A. (and the Press) of the city in question vigorously insist on the guilt of the suspect. In my view, this is a very worrisome pattern. In passing, I will mention that--in the JFK case--the evidence strongly suggests multiple snipers, from several locations, in both front and back, yet the Warren Commission apologists continue to tout the very flawed "Lone, crazed killer/Single bullet theory" scenario and to shout down the skeptics (often laced with very rude--and even hysterical--personal attack, which, in itself--in my view--brings into question the legitimacy of the argument).

No, presumption of guilt based on overwhelming evidence is not a fallacy.

I personally applaud you for trying to make an argument for the "he's guilty because they said so" culture. In this case though. the information of Paddocks guilt is coming from the law enforcement individuals who ended his rein of terror as it was continuing to happen if we take the word of the officers. In cases where the defendant dies before even getting arrested, we usually side with the people who are a part of the capture of the suspect and assume their word is truthful. No fallacy of course as Bo Said.
Btw in Kennedy's case, It's been proven with evidence that three shots came from the depository building. The first one was deflected from a traffic light pole hanging over the street below the window where the shots were fired and the other two were the neck shot and head shot.

Ha ha ha. Well, thanks for the "applause," but-in the Kennedy case--the evidence supports shots from at least three directions, and there is very sparse evidence (much short, "proof") of a "Lone, crazed gunman" and the "Single Bullet Theory." If Lee Oswald had lived to be tried (and the court convened were not a "Star Chamber" junk court, which--incidentally--the Warren Commission, post mortem, essentially was), he would have been acquitted. One could even argue that this is actually why the suspect had to be "removed"in the Dallas Police Dept. basement. What's more, Ruby's later testimony to the Warren Commission suggested something else was going on (in dispatching Oswald), than his simply wanting to serve the Kennedy family in some way. He pleaded that he be taken back to Washington, before he could provide much more complete testimony.