Robber Killed-- Pharmacist Charged

[Jaxon]

Perhaps this should have a thread of it's own, but this case really brings to light a question I have always wondered about. Namely, we say a person is innocent until proven guilty. But it doesn't always seem to be that way. For instance this case, the pharmacist had his 2nd amendment rights stripped and he hasn't even had a trial. Are we supposed to park our constutional rights at the courthouse door simply because an accusation is leveled. Think about it. If we say "innocent until proven guilty" but have no problems with one's constutional rights being yanked as they leave the courthouse what do we really believe. Now, I know accused child molesters need to be be kept from children and so forth. And I also know this makes me sound like I'm on both sides of the issue. But I said I've thought much about this "innocent until proven guilty" so I am trying to reconcile this in my mind.