zlacker

>>mikeyo+(OP)
fwiw, it appears one of the named here is a YC Alum: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=il https://www.linkedin.com/in/unrealdutch/

>>albrol+l5
Let's be fair to these individuals and not presume guilt.

In the US, it's "innocent until proven guilty".

Media is so quick to assume the person is guilty just because of an allegation.

>>tiffan+Hn
That's the standard for our criminal justice system, not for us as individuals. It sounds from the release that the justice department has a boatload of compelling evidence against them.

>>d23+nr
> "It sounds from the release that the justice department has a boatload of compelling evidence against them."

You'd hope that before someone is arrested, the prosecutor has ample evidence to prove guilt.

I don't understand your point.

These individuals have not been proven guilty yet. Why are you editorializing their presumed guilt in this matter.

Note: I have no affiliation with these individuals nor case.

>>tiffan+Hs
He's saying that the law presumes innocence until proven guilty. They don't throw you in jail or take your money until the legal process reaches a judgement, and this is pretty normal and uncontroversial.

But you don't have to keep going for drinks with a person who's just been arrested and let out on bail, you can make up your own opinion as you feel. You can say bad things about him before the judge does, you can deny them business opportunities, your kids don't have to play with his kids.

>>lordna+xt
But you are not going by any other evidence than what the prosecution is showing here. Unless you have an insider perspective or were close enough to those involved, you don't really have anything to go by in judging their guilt than what the prosecution wants to show (and they will obviously be extremely biaised, that's the point!). So by de facto believing the prosecution, you aren't really doing anything else than assuming guilt.

You can obviously do that, but it makes little sense to do so when the system has been built around not taking what the prosecution says at face value or as a source of truth. The job of the prosecution is not to show the facts, it's to prosecute. Yes you don't have to go by the standards of the judicial system & presume innocence here, but why then use the prosecution's case when it only makes sense in the context of how our judicial system works?

>>mardif+PJ
> But you are not going by any other evidence than what the prosecution is showing here.

I haven't mentioned either the prosecution or the defense.

The defense makes noises too, and you are welcome to make your own mix of whatever you like.

But to repeat the point, you are under no obligation, it is the official system that is.