You have a peculiar interpretation of justice, one that makes you pretty much like those that liked to burn people on fire pyres on the basis of allegations made by socially relevant people.
Why is it the appropriate standard? Because as a society, we believe that taking away an innocent person's liberty is far worse than letting a guilty person go free. For the expected value (in the statistical sense) of the legal system's benefit to society to be positive, the prevalence of the former should be a tiny fraction of the prevalence of the latter. (How tiny that fraction actually is, in the US or anywhere else, is debatable - you could look at the number of convicts who were proved innocent upon the advent of DNA testing - but that's not the point.) Thus we should only convict if the apparent probability of guilt is extremely high.
But if I as a bystander believe an innocent person is guilty, it's not as big a deal. True, if a lot of people believe that, it causes some reputational damage, which can be bad. If someone with a connection to the person makes decisions disfavorable to them based on that belief, that's quite bad. But this risk is mitigated by the fact that soon enough the police will be required to present their evidence in court, which should help drive our assessments with more certainty to one possibility or the other. And in any case, these harms are far lesser than the harm of subjecting the person to prison, or worse punishments.
Perhaps I misstated the ideal standard for bystanders. Perhaps it should not be literally whichever possibility is more likely; perhaps we should give people some "benefit of the doubt", due to the above harms. But there's no need for the extreme standard demanded by the actual justice system. A reasonably high probability of guilt is enough, at least to treat guilt as a working hypothesis.
In a legal system such as the United States', "if the police took him" (specifically, indicted him), I'd say there's a high probability - at least 75% or so, probably higher - that there's a "good reason for that to happen". (At least in the sense of "he did what they say he did"; whether that thing ought to be illegal or not is typically more subjective.) It's not certain; there could be some sort of corruption or unethical behavior by the police, or they could simply be mistaken. But it's enough to form a working hypothesis, to use until we gain more information.
Innocent people have their lives for ever ruined with nothing more than false accusations, and not being found not guilty at trial does not change that.
Further I would like to see where you get your belief that police are correct 75% or more of the time.
It seems to me you have a very favorable opinion of the American legal System, this tells me you have very very limited first hand experience with it and like view of from rose colored world view never having known anyone personally that has been ground down to nothing by this system that is IMO largely unethical
it was the FBI that pointed the Media to him as a suspect.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal standard applied where “guilty” means having one’s liberty taken away. And in that context it’s a perfectly appropriate standard. But as mere spectators, where the harm caused by mistakenly believing he’s guilty is minimal, I think we should feel free to simply believe in the most likely possibility (aka preponderance of the evidence). You may disagree on that point, and that’s your right. However, if we agree to apply that standard, I don’t think it’s reasonable to believe that the FBI’s allegations being false is actually more likely than the alternative.
> I never take the government word for anything, and generally assume the government is lying at all times. History supports my position.
[citation needed]