9 ms·

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 jus

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.

d23 5y ago
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.
- tiffanyh 5y ago
  > "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.
  - lordnacho 5y ago
    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.
    - bandrami 5y ago
      Actually they are happy to take your money before the legal process reaches a judgement. If you aren't familiar with the process of civil forfeiture you might want to look into it.
    - nobrains 5y ago
      Disagree. You can make your opinion and you can take your precautions. But unless you were not directly harmed you should not “say bad things about them”, as you put it, just because they are a suspect in a case.
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        >Disagree. You can make your opinion and you can take your precautions. But unless you were not directly harmed you should not “say bad things about them”, as you put it, just because they are a suspect in a case. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Regardless of whether you "were not directly harmed" I don't see why someone should or shouldn't “say bad things about them." Why shouldn't I express my opinion? Or are we in "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" territory? I may be misunderstanding your point. If so, please do correct me. If not, I don't see why I (or anyone else) shouldn't express their opinion WRT anything. What value that opinion may have can certainly be debated, but why should someone not express their opinion?
    - melenaboija 5y ago
      > You can say bad things about him before the judge does Yup, I don’t understand how people is not used yet to public trials at social networks
    - mardifoufs 5y ago
      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?
      - lordnacho 5y ago
        > 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.
    - RHSeeger 5y ago
      And plenty of innocent people have had their lives ruined because of exactly this behavior.
  - giarc 5y ago
    I think the commentor is stating that you and I have no reason to presume innocence until proven guilty. We can make up our own opinion. However, the judicial system has to assume innocence so the defendant can get a fair trial.
    - dhsysusbsjsi 5y ago
      But not so much that they let them go. Quite often there is a very fast hearing within 1-2 weeks where a Judge decides to lock them up for 2 years without parole awaiting trial, because it's pretty damn clear they're probably guilty - enough initial evidence not to let them back out into society at least.
  - hellomyguys 5y ago
    It's pretty normal for people to look at the evidence and be able to decide if someone was guilty or not. If someone is on video shooting someone, it is a bit silly to say "Why are you editorializing their presumed guilt in this matter."
    - dazilcher 5y ago
      Kyle Rittenhouse would like a word with you.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        My experience was that people did not look at the evidence- they jumped to a conclusion.
        ryan_lane 5y ago
        Yeah, because if you happen to look at the evidence, the fact is that he took a gun across state lines, to "protect people's property" at a protest, and he ended up killing people, it would be pretty easy to come to the conclusion that he's guilty of at least manslaughter. Of course, he was charged with murder, and that's harder to prove. The fact that he was found not guilty doesn't mean he's innocent. It means he's not guilty of the crime they were prosecuting him for. He's not someone I'd hire for anything, he's not someone I'd want my friends and family around. He's not someone I'd want attending any protest I was attending. He's not a good person, and he's a clear and present danger to society. These are the decisions that I, as an individual, am free to make because I'm not the government, and I don't have to abide by "innocent until proven guilty" for how I personally judge people.
        ahallock 5y ago
        You just proved the parent's point.
  - kingcharles 5y ago
    Grand juries indict in >99% of cases. It's just a rubber-stamp. The grand jury only hears the prosecutor's side. They can say pretty much anything. Please find me a case where a prosecutor or LEO was charged with perjury for lying to a grand jury. I've been indicted twice and both times the grand jury transcripts were just lies. In fact, I got someone released after 16 months in jail on a burglary charge because their grand jury was lies. The story the cop told was a complete fabrication.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  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.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    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.
    - Gene_Parmesan 5y ago
      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.
  - NationalPark 5y ago
    Surely the important distinction here is that the state has the power to imprison or execute people. In our day to day lives, we frequently make decisions based on things not proved to that standard, such as in job interviews or on dates. Presumption of innocence is very much an abstract legal contrivance, though it's insightful to see in what cases people suddenly decide it needs to be applied outside that realm.
    - thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
dcist 5y ago
check out the affidavit accompanying the criminal complaint: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1470186/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1470186/downl... yes, they're legally presumed innocent but they have a LOT of 'splaining to do.
- paulpauper 5y ago
  feds seldom lose, 98+% conviction rate
  - briantakita 5y ago
    Federal lawyers are expensive, especially if the defendant is innocent. Being accused is already a punishment.
grumple 5y ago
The federal government has a ridiculously high conviction rate: 99.96% [1]. They basically only bring the case if they have everything they need to convict. 1. https://www.bhlawfirm.com/blog/2021/05/the-federal-conviction-rate-may-cause-you-to-rethink-your-defense-strategy/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20federal%20government's,guilty%20to%20their%20alleged%20offenses https://www.bhlawfirm.com/blog/2021/05/the-federal-convictio....
- tnorthcutt 5y ago
  What portion of those convictions are plea bargains? This article says 97%: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-because-prosecutors-are-coercing-plea-deals-yes-ncna1034201 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-bec... Why are people so eager to confess their guilt instead of challenging the government to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a unanimous jury? The answer is simple and stark: They’re being coerced.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    This is a pretty silly argument. I'm not opining on whether or not prosecutions are coercive; I'm certain they are. But a lower conviction rate would be a bad thing: it would mean the DOJ was bringing more cases they weren't certain they would win, and even exoneration comes with immense costs to the accused.
    - tnorthcutt 5y ago
      I wasn't replying to a claim that a high conviction rate is a good thing (or better than a lower one). I was replying to a claim that a high conviction rate somehow suggests we should dispense with the idea that, as a society, we should not presume guilt. grumple, who I replied to, seemed to me to be suggesting that because the federal government has a high conviction rate, we should assume the accused are guilty. I'm suggesting that because there is compelling evidence that many guilty verdicts are obtained through coercion, we should not make that assumption.
parineum 5y ago
For non-high profile investigations (investigations that were not in the media before charges), announcing charges typically has a large body of evidence and a lot of confidence in the accusation. Of course innocent until proven guilty applies but the justice department knows that and still brought charges. At the very least, they believe they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt. High profile cases with public pressure change the equation a bit and can cause charges to be brought on people who normally would not. I suspect this is a way to pass the buck to the courts when the person eventually gets off due to lack of evidence.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >Of course innocent until proven guilty applies but the justice department knows that and still brought charges. At the very least, they believe they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt. It's a bit of a nitpick, but the Justice Department (DoJ) hasn't proven anything. The defendants in question have been charged (and arrested?), but no trial (or plea bargain) has been held. As such, presumably the DoJ has what they believe is sufficient evidence to convict the defendants on the charges brought against them. However, until a trial (or a plea agreement) is concluded, the DoJ hasn't "proven" anything. Rather, they brought charges against some folks. That's not "proven beyond a reasonable doubt," that's making accusations and bringing the case into the court system. What the DoJ believes (and/or believes it can prove) is not proof in and of itself.
  - parineum 5y ago
    I mean that they have proven it to themselves, I don't mean it in a legal sense.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      > I mean that they have proven it to themselves, I don't mean it in a legal sense. A fair point. And it's likely you're correct. Although using the term 'prove' has specific legal meaning that many (myself included) folks would associate with the use of that term. As I said, there's what you believe and what you can prove. Believing you can prove something may be well founded, but at least in the US nothing is actually "proven" until it has been adjudicated -- and even then contrary decisions (e.g., in an appeal) can "un-prove" stuff.
mannykannot 5y ago
There is what appears to be a rather amusing side-effect of this principle: “The arrests today show that we will take a firm stand against those who allegedly try to use virtual currencies for criminal purposes.” - Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr. [My emphasis.] There's no reason for the Justice Dept. not to take a firm stand against those who try to use virtual currencies for criminal purposes, or say that they are doing so - and, in fact, that would be rather better than taking a firm stand against those who have merely been accused of doing so. I guess that 'allegedly' was inserted here in order to forestall a claim that this statement deprived the defendants in this case of due process, if or when it comes to trial.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >I guess that 'allegedly' was inserted here in order to forestall a claim that this statement deprived the defendants in this case of due process, if or when it comes to trial. Actually, the 'allegedly' bit was inserted because the defendants in this case are alleged to have committed some criminal act(s). They have not been proven (whether via a trial or a plea agreement) to have done so. The defendants may well be "guilty," or they may not. That's what the legal process (as flawed as it may be) is constituted to determine. Forming an opinion at to whether or not anyone has committed an illegal act(s) is perfectly normal and reasonable. However, unless you're a member of a jury in a trial, your opinion generally won't affect the outcome. All that said, defendants are "alleged" to have committed criminal act(s) until the case has been adjudicated, whether that be by trial or plea agreement. N.B.: IANAL.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    I se I have not made my point clear here. The quoted statement is not referring to these defendants in particular, it is referring to those who try to use virtual currencies for criminal purposes in general - yet the language appropriate for referring to specific defendants creeps in here, presumably out of concern that some people cannot tell the difference. When a crime has been committed, it was not allegedly done by a person or persons unknown, it was actually done by whoever they were. One of the jobs of the justice department is to catch criminals, not alleged criminals.
evdubs 5y ago
Heather Morgan admitted to the hack on TikTok https://twitter.com/BillSPACman/status/1491131214014869505 https://twitter.com/BillSPACman/status/1491131214014869505 Edit: whoops. That video is fake. It's from https://www.tiktok.com/@realrazzlekhan/video/6908514789681597702 https://www.tiktok.com/@realrazzlekhan/video/690851478968159...
cgriswald 5y ago
The person you are responding to does not seem to have taken a position on the guilt or innocence of these individuals and has only noted an affiliation.
wonnage 5y ago
People are still free to have opinions on the case. The purpose of this legal principle is to put the burden of proof on the prosecution, i.e the government can't simply blame you for a crime and force you to dig up evidence of innocence. People can disagree even if you're found innocent at trial... just look at OJ's case. The government isn't going to prosecute him again, but "OJ did it" is gonna dog him for the rest of his life.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
It's the feds not some southern yokel state attorney. We're just going with the odds. No one here is saying throw them in prison without a trial.

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.

d23 5y ago

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.

tiffanyh 5y ago
> "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.
- lordnacho 5y ago
  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.
  - bandrami 5y ago
    Actually they are happy to take your money before the legal process reaches a judgement. If you aren't familiar with the process of civil forfeiture you might want to look into it.
  - nobrains 5y ago
    Disagree. You can make your opinion and you can take your precautions. But unless you were not directly harmed you should not “say bad things about them”, as you put it, just because they are a suspect in a case.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >Disagree. You can make your opinion and you can take your precautions. But unless you were not directly harmed you should not “say bad things about them”, as you put it, just because they are a suspect in a case. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Regardless of whether you "were not directly harmed" I don't see why someone should or shouldn't “say bad things about them." Why shouldn't I express my opinion? Or are we in "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" territory? I may be misunderstanding your point. If so, please do correct me. If not, I don't see why I (or anyone else) shouldn't express their opinion WRT anything. What value that opinion may have can certainly be debated, but why should someone not express their opinion?
  - melenaboija 5y ago
    > You can say bad things about him before the judge does Yup, I don’t understand how people is not used yet to public trials at social networks
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    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?
    - lordnacho 5y ago
      > 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.
  - RHSeeger 5y ago
    And plenty of innocent people have had their lives ruined because of exactly this behavior.
- giarc 5y ago
  I think the commentor is stating that you and I have no reason to presume innocence until proven guilty. We can make up our own opinion. However, the judicial system has to assume innocence so the defendant can get a fair trial.
  - dhsysusbsjsi 5y ago
    But not so much that they let them go. Quite often there is a very fast hearing within 1-2 weeks where a Judge decides to lock them up for 2 years without parole awaiting trial, because it's pretty damn clear they're probably guilty - enough initial evidence not to let them back out into society at least.
- hellomyguys 5y ago
  It's pretty normal for people to look at the evidence and be able to decide if someone was guilty or not. If someone is on video shooting someone, it is a bit silly to say "Why are you editorializing their presumed guilt in this matter."
  - dazilcher 5y ago
    Kyle Rittenhouse would like a word with you.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      My experience was that people did not look at the evidence- they jumped to a conclusion.
      - ryan_lane 5y ago
        Yeah, because if you happen to look at the evidence, the fact is that he took a gun across state lines, to "protect people's property" at a protest, and he ended up killing people, it would be pretty easy to come to the conclusion that he's guilty of at least manslaughter. Of course, he was charged with murder, and that's harder to prove. The fact that he was found not guilty doesn't mean he's innocent. It means he's not guilty of the crime they were prosecuting him for. He's not someone I'd hire for anything, he's not someone I'd want my friends and family around. He's not someone I'd want attending any protest I was attending. He's not a good person, and he's a clear and present danger to society. These are the decisions that I, as an individual, am free to make because I'm not the government, and I don't have to abide by "innocent until proven guilty" for how I personally judge people.
        ahallock 5y ago
        You just proved the parent's point.
- kingcharles 5y ago
  Grand juries indict in >99% of cases. It's just a rubber-stamp. The grand jury only hears the prosecutor's side. They can say pretty much anything. Please find me a case where a prosecutor or LEO was charged with perjury for lying to a grand jury. I've been indicted twice and both times the grand jury transcripts were just lies. In fact, I got someone released after 16 months in jail on a burglary charge because their grand jury was lies. The story the cop told was a complete fabrication.
mardifoufs 5y ago
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.
- yupper32 5y ago
  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.
  - Gene_Parmesan 5y ago
    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.
- NationalPark 5y ago
  Surely the important distinction here is that the state has the power to imprison or execute people. In our day to day lives, we frequently make decisions based on things not proved to that standard, such as in job interviews or on dates. Presumption of innocence is very much an abstract legal contrivance, though it's insightful to see in what cases people suddenly decide it needs to be applied outside that realm.
  - thrwyoilarticle 5y ago

dcist 5y ago

check out the affidavit accompanying the criminal complaint: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1470186/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1470186/downl... yes, they're legally presumed innocent but they have a LOT of 'splaining to do.

paulpauper 5y ago
feds seldom lose, 98+% conviction rate
- briantakita 5y ago
  Federal lawyers are expensive, especially if the defendant is innocent. Being accused is already a punishment.

grumple 5y ago

The federal government has a ridiculously high conviction rate: 99.96% [1]. They basically only bring the case if they have everything they need to convict. 1. https://www.bhlawfirm.com/blog/2021/05/the-federal-conviction-rate-may-cause-you-to-rethink-your-defense-strategy/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20federal%20government's,guilty%20to%20their%20alleged%20offenses https://www.bhlawfirm.com/blog/2021/05/the-federal-convictio....

tnorthcutt 5y ago
What portion of those convictions are plea bargains? This article says 97%: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-because-prosecutors-are-coercing-plea-deals-yes-ncna1034201 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-bec... Why are people so eager to confess their guilt instead of challenging the government to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a unanimous jury? The answer is simple and stark: They’re being coerced.
- tptacek 5y ago
  This is a pretty silly argument. I'm not opining on whether or not prosecutions are coercive; I'm certain they are. But a lower conviction rate would be a bad thing: it would mean the DOJ was bringing more cases they weren't certain they would win, and even exoneration comes with immense costs to the accused.
  - tnorthcutt 5y ago
    I wasn't replying to a claim that a high conviction rate is a good thing (or better than a lower one). I was replying to a claim that a high conviction rate somehow suggests we should dispense with the idea that, as a society, we should not presume guilt. grumple, who I replied to, seemed to me to be suggesting that because the federal government has a high conviction rate, we should assume the accused are guilty. I'm suggesting that because there is compelling evidence that many guilty verdicts are obtained through coercion, we should not make that assumption.

parineum 5y ago

For non-high profile investigations (investigations that were not in the media before charges), announcing charges typically has a large body of evidence and a lot of confidence in the accusation. Of course innocent until proven guilty applies but the justice department knows that and still brought charges. At the very least, they believe they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt. High profile cases with public pressure change the equation a bit and can cause charges to be brought on people who normally would not. I suspect this is a way to pass the buck to the courts when the person eventually gets off due to lack of evidence.

nobody9999 5y ago
>Of course innocent until proven guilty applies but the justice department knows that and still brought charges. At the very least, they believe they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt. It's a bit of a nitpick, but the Justice Department (DoJ) hasn't proven anything. The defendants in question have been charged (and arrested?), but no trial (or plea bargain) has been held. As such, presumably the DoJ has what they believe is sufficient evidence to convict the defendants on the charges brought against them. However, until a trial (or a plea agreement) is concluded, the DoJ hasn't "proven" anything. Rather, they brought charges against some folks. That's not "proven beyond a reasonable doubt," that's making accusations and bringing the case into the court system. What the DoJ believes (and/or believes it can prove) is not proof in and of itself.
- parineum 5y ago
  I mean that they have proven it to themselves, I don't mean it in a legal sense.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    > I mean that they have proven it to themselves, I don't mean it in a legal sense. A fair point. And it's likely you're correct. Although using the term 'prove' has specific legal meaning that many (myself included) folks would associate with the use of that term. As I said, there's what you believe and what you can prove. Believing you can prove something may be well founded, but at least in the US nothing is actually "proven" until it has been adjudicated -- and even then contrary decisions (e.g., in an appeal) can "un-prove" stuff.

mannykannot 5y ago

There is what appears to be a rather amusing side-effect of this principle: “The arrests today show that we will take a firm stand against those who allegedly try to use virtual currencies for criminal purposes.” - Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr. [My emphasis.] There's no reason for the Justice Dept. not to take a firm stand against those who try to use virtual currencies for criminal purposes, or say that they are doing so - and, in fact, that would be rather better than taking a firm stand against those who have merely been accused of doing so. I guess that 'allegedly' was inserted here in order to forestall a claim that this statement deprived the defendants in this case of due process, if or when it comes to trial.

nobody9999 5y ago
>I guess that 'allegedly' was inserted here in order to forestall a claim that this statement deprived the defendants in this case of due process, if or when it comes to trial. Actually, the 'allegedly' bit was inserted because the defendants in this case are alleged to have committed some criminal act(s). They have not been proven (whether via a trial or a plea agreement) to have done so. The defendants may well be "guilty," or they may not. That's what the legal process (as flawed as it may be) is constituted to determine. Forming an opinion at to whether or not anyone has committed an illegal act(s) is perfectly normal and reasonable. However, unless you're a member of a jury in a trial, your opinion generally won't affect the outcome. All that said, defendants are "alleged" to have committed criminal act(s) until the case has been adjudicated, whether that be by trial or plea agreement. N.B.: IANAL.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  I se I have not made my point clear here. The quoted statement is not referring to these defendants in particular, it is referring to those who try to use virtual currencies for criminal purposes in general - yet the language appropriate for referring to specific defendants creeps in here, presumably out of concern that some people cannot tell the difference. When a crime has been committed, it was not allegedly done by a person or persons unknown, it was actually done by whoever they were. One of the jobs of the justice department is to catch criminals, not alleged criminals.

evdubs 5y ago

Heather Morgan admitted to the hack on TikTok https://twitter.com/BillSPACman/status/1491131214014869505 https://twitter.com/BillSPACman/status/1491131214014869505 Edit: whoops. That video is fake. It's from https://www.tiktok.com/@realrazzlekhan/video/6908514789681597702 https://www.tiktok.com/@realrazzlekhan/video/690851478968159...

cgriswald 5y ago

The person you are responding to does not seem to have taken a position on the guilt or innocence of these individuals and has only noted an affiliation.

wonnage 5y ago

People are still free to have opinions on the case. The purpose of this legal principle is to put the burden of proof on the prosecution, i.e the government can't simply blame you for a crime and force you to dig up evidence of innocence. People can disagree even if you're found innocent at trial... just look at OJ's case. The government isn't going to prosecute him again, but "OJ did it" is gonna dog him for the rest of his life.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

It's the feds not some southern yokel state attorney. We're just going with the odds. No one here is saying throw them in prison without a trial.