I don't see many people saying this out loud, so I will.
We have a cultural problem with our attitudes regarding burden of proof.
In criminal court, the burden of proof is set at "beyond a reasonable doubt." In civil court, the burden of proof is set at, "the preponderance of evidence." In the court of public opinion, there seems to be no burden of proof.
We justify our reactions, however unreasonable or unfounded, to high profile cases, seemingly because we're not individually on the jury and actually making the decision as to whether or not a person is going to spend a lot of time in a cage, or be killed by the state, or found liable and having his or her reputation and livelihood destroyed.
Well, first of all, if you're a registered voter, you might be a juror on one of these cases one day. Are you going to apply your same fast and loose manner of thinking, and go with your first impressions and reactions to being an actual juror that you apply to the less consequential role of keyboard warrior?
I can honestly say that, if I were on trial for murder in a self-defense case, I wouldn't want the majority of you on my jury.
But, what's more, I don't think that most of you would support a change in the system that would flip the presumption of innocence around so the accused are presumed guilty until proven innocent -- at least, I hope not. I don't think that most of you would want to alter the burden of proof in criminal cases from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to anything beneath that -- at least, I hope not.
We didn't pull these burdens of proof out of our asses. These standards became the standards of western civilization because they're morally right. If you're going to throw somebody in a cage, you'd better be damn sure. Blackstone's ratio isn't just a philosophical musing, it's a moral standard.
So, no, you don't get a pass for presuming guilt and joining the mob just because you're not on that particular jury.
Of course, you can voice opinions. I voiced my opinion that the Rittenhouse case looked like obvious self-defense from day one. You're allowed to say that it looks like murder to you -- you'd be outing yourself as s low IQ person; but, you're allowed to say it.
There's a difference between voicing an initial reaction and joining the "Hang Kyle!" mob. There's a difference between voicing and initial opinion that Daniel Penny used disproportionate force in restraining Neely (again, you'd be an idiot). That's different from keeping with the mob of howling idiots who still think that Penny is guilty and should go to prison for fifteen years or more. That's different from joining the hoards of jackasses who were blocking the subway tracks calling for Daniel Penny's blood.
If you're not applying a presumption of innocence in your own thinking when you evaluate these cases, you're behaving immorally. You, as an individual, are compromising centuries worth of enlightened values that brought us out of the age of cutting off the hands of petty thieves and hanging anyone accused of being a witch.
Our processes are the product of our civilization and our values. Our processes are therefore vulnerable to a compromised civilization with defunct values.
We need to do better.