"Innocent until proven guilty" does not mean "Abandon critical thought until a judge tells you otherwise" — this guy caught himself up in crimes literally everywhere he went... and this was after fleeing from a $25m judgement against him.

It seems a bit daft to think "gee, he probably did nothing wrong" simply because of how the American legal system is designed.

It is absurd to apply that to individual, or even social, judgement. We don't actually pretend to be ignorant and blind of a person's probable or apparent misdeeds if they haven't been proven in a court of law, nor should we. If, for instance, I notice a couple small, expensive items go missing each time my cousin visits, I'm not going to say "oh well, better not tell anyone else he's probably a thief and I'd better keep inviting him over and leaving him unattended, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law after all". That'd be silly, and acting that way to such an absolute adherence to that principle would be downright anti-social. If he's later convicted and my family finds out I'd noticed years ago, but not warned them because he hadn't been convicted yet, and so he stole things from them because I didn't warn them, they'd justly be pissed off at me.

Or, what, are we suddenly not allowed to judge people's apparent behavior & deeds as soon as they're criminal, but free to before that? That doesn't make much sense either. But clearly we can form and share judgements about behavior that's not criminal, and that's fine. If it gets too serious, though, then we have to stop unless a conviction occurs? Huh?