I understand assuming someone is innocent before guilt is proven, and it's a principle I support heartily.
That said, it's weird to hear NPR reporters refer to the "alleged gun man" at Fort Hood. I mean, there were hundreds of witnesses. He was not framed. He conceivably be found not guilty by reason of insanity, but he would still be the gun man at Fort Hood who shot people.
I suppose the reason it seems weird is that in situations like this, the gun man is usually shot dead and they just refer to him as "the gun man" without any qualifications.