“Why shouldn’t we accept the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty?”
Of course this is the case. The accused do not need to prove innocence, accuser must prove guilt in court.
But that is not relevant to the point I made concerning acceptance of claims.
I can no more accept the claim that all these arrested bikers are guilty than the claim that they are all innocent and being railroaded.
There is no way for me to know either is the case, nor for anyone else commenting on this issue here.
Ultimate guilt or innocence is not what I (and many others) have been discussing. Of course, there IS speculation on what MAY have occurred and where ultimate guilt and innocence may fall. I do not do a lot of that myself.
However, there are several aspects of what we DO know that can be argued on the merits, related to due process of law, which many of us see as being trampled on.
When you have to invent a strawman like that, you have an extremely weak position.
I don’t recall seeing anyone post that there were no gang members involved in any fight at all. So you are arguing against a position that nobody here has put forth.
What has been stated is that there was at most ten or twenty people out of over a hundred and seventy involved in any brawl that occurred and that the undercover officer seen in the photographs may have incited said brawl...which if incited by wearing false colors would still be illegal activity on the part of whatever gang members may have joined in.
In no way does said brawl justify shooting or arresting any non-participants.
What say you about the bikers who were arrested not at Twin Peaks but near the Convention Center and gassing up at a truck stop? Three of them were initially given a lower bond so were able to pay out and go home. The DA got hyper and demanded Peterson revoke the lower bonds and up them to the blanket $1M. The guys turned themselves back in.