Big Ben did a whole lot more than embarrass the league. He raped a girl. But the DA concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to convince a jury of Steelers fans that he did. DA had enough evidence to convince Rodger, however. That doesn't change what he did, or do you still think OJ was innocent too?
It's a really weird phenomenon. People seem to think the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard should apply to what people think, believe, or do outside a courtroom. For example, when an allegation is made against someone, it's not unusual to hear two guys at a water cooler, or people on an internet message board, say, "innocent until proven guilty."
Which makes me laugh. Everyone says they hate lawyers, but they all want to be just them and talk just like them. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a
legal fiction. It is a concept to be used, exclusively, in
court. It is a reflection of the fact that we, as a society, have determined that throwing a person in jail, or executing them, is a really big deal and we want to be absolutely sure before we do it.
It has, however, nothing to do with the
truth. In the real world -- meaning the 99.99999 percent of the world that exists outside the courtroom -- there is actually "truth." Nobody is
actually "innocent until proven guilty." Someone is either guilty or they are not. Something either happened or it didn't. The fact that we impose burdens of proof in
court does not change that fact. There's nothing wrong with a person deciding that Ben probably had non-consensual sex with someone and taking action against him based on that belief. The only caveat is that if that someone is a court, and the action is throwing him in jail or convicting him of a criminal offense, he gets a heavy presumption of innocence.
