I mean...personally I've been detained a number of times for doing perfectly legal things. I've beaten speeding tickets, I was the victim of an assault where despite video evidence I was given a citation for disorderly conduct. The US has executed innocent people, recently. It isn't even about 'innocent until proven guilty'...the idea that someone on trial must be guilty of something is incredibly common and deeply problematic for our society, not just our system of justice. It presumes that policing is not just always accurate but automatically accurate. It is propaganda used to marginalize certain communities in a very intentional way.

That idea is so incorrect that it is disqualifying from participating in this conversation further.

The dispute here is over the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Your insistence that everybody who agrees with this core tenet of justice should "go outside" is doing nothing to support your argument. Besides, we've got smartphones and can continue the conversation out there.

It is 100% false. I can't produce a citation because I know this from doing data analysis for a private organization with data I don't have rights to, but tracking people given average-to-low bails in Seattle showed that over 50% of them had all charges dismissed if they were bailed out (if not bailed out, about 90% of them just pleaded guilty). One particularly egregious case had video evidence showing that the homeless man charged with assaulting a cop had actually been randomly assaulted by the cop without any interaction in the leadup. 'Going outside' isn't going to teach you anything about the reality of people being routinely arrested for the convenience of others, but listening to other people who are familiar with reality might.

If it's plainly true it shouldn't be hard to produce a citation.

So you're saying that these citations have a 100% conviction rate? If some people are found not guilty, are you saying the citations still "legitimate" somehow? By what standard of evidence?