When people make the interpretation about “innocent until proven guilty” they should realize that this could only be applied to a court of law (you will not hear that phrase used in the court of law mind you) where the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Outside a court of law it is a different story. Weather or not you agree with it, public opinion (or sometimes just common sense) is a powerful force that does not need a guilty verdict to have an impact. Two cases in point are Ben Roethlisberger and OJ Simpson. Neither one was found guilty in a court of law. Yet OJ was forced to pay millions as the result of a civil lawsuit and Big Ben will be sitting out games this season and losing money due to a league suspension. So, obviously someone of power thought they were not “innocent” men even though they were never proven guilty. In LT’s case he may or may not be charged with any crimes. Yet even if he is not, a person is justified in having a feeling/reaction/opinion about the man and his character based upon his past and his recent choice to hire a girl to have sex with.
Imagine this sceneario. A teenage kid at your local high school is accused of rape by a fellow female student. But no charges are filed because they were both drunk at the same party and not enough evidence exists to prove rape. Two weeks later, your 16 year old daughter tells you that this same kid has asked her to the prom. So, ask yourself honestly if you would a) feel like he was never found guilty so it’s alright or b) feel that this kid has demonstrated poor character recently and not want him alone in a pontentially dangerous situation with your daughter?