Thanks for making me laugh :) (I didn't laugh at you, the snail example was pretty funny).

Yes, the innocent until proven guilty is a matter of legal affairs.

Yes, the public opinion isn't bound to such limitations. But that is only because the public opinion isn't supposed to have executive power.

Arguably, the Internet changed that. The public opinion now does have at least some executive power: before the internet, it was practically impossible for anyone to organize a coherent retaliation towards any entity; and that responsibility was entirely left to the official, governmental executive power.

Since social media enabled emergent social organization, coherent retaliation is absolutely possible, and is something the American "left" has been doing for a decade with the concept of "cancelling" people.

Now, as I posted elsewhere, the algorithms in place online are shaping the discourse, and aren't shaping it in a way that aims at social improvement, but at engagement maximization. Which, you know, anger and hate are the easiest and fastest route to.

The consequence of this is that the American "right" has duly noted what the "left" has been doing, learned from their concept, learned the tools, and is now apparently preparing their own version of "cancelling" people, which presumably involves the second amendment.

It is probably too late to remind everyone that "innocent until proven guilty" shall apply to any and all parties with executive power, however emergent; but I still think it's an important fact to highlight.

In case we can salvage anything from what our ancestors gave their blood and sweat for, and learn how to resolve conflict instead of giving in, having a major crisis; only after which we will begin pondering what need(ed) to be done.