Originally Posted by
PTravel
That's not what I said. Read it again:
You misunderstand the meaning of presumption of innocence. It means that, before you can be convicted of a crime, the state must meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Should it fail to do so, you are not guilty by law.
It has no meaning on the street. Police have no burden of proof, and may investigate based on reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc.
One more time: the presumption of innocence is a concept that applies to a court adjudication of guilt only.
LEOs can't detain or arrest or seize without meeting the appropriate standard. It has nothing to do with presumption of innocence, but with the 5th and, particularly, the 4th Amendment.
You seem to be mixing up a legal definition with a practical definition. "Presumption of innocence" has a specific meaning within a legal context, but it also has a general, conceptual meaning. The law is based on that concept, which existed before it was codified into law. It's fine to engage in legal hair-splitting in a court of law; walking down the street, irrespective of what any law says or what any LEO believes, I have a right to be able to go about my business without having to prove that I'm not breaking the law. If you would rather use a different terminology than "presumption of innocence" for that, it's all the same to me, as long as it doesn't impact the practical end-result.