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
There's a reason why the criminal justice system operates like that though. The system has been designed like that because it turned that it is a very good idea not to go on witch hunts or to assume guilt if you want a functional society. I'm not defending the person involved here, but it's important to remember that the presumption of innocence isn't just an abstract legal concept instead of a very important part of the social contract.

>>mardif+fx
I could literally watch someone pick up a gun and shoot someone. Technically they're still innocent until a court of law says they're guilty. But as an individual I don't need to wait to think they're guilty.

The question is where do you draw the line as an individual.

>>yupper+yX
Non-lawyers often seem to misunderstand this phrase. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a statement defining the fact that in criminal cases, the burden of proof rests with the government. They have to present evidence proving your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; you don't have to present any evidence proving your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's all it means. Obviously judges are not supposed to come into a case assuming you are guilty, but you can say that about any type of case. The phrase certainly doesn't mean we have to pretend that you are perfectly innocent up until the point of verdict.