[jMyles]

Every component of the framework of individual rights in common law societies, including but not limited to trial by jury, a speedy trial, public proceedings, and prohibitions on excessive bail are all designed to ensure that the state can't capriciously violate the rights of innocent people.

Although, like all legal principles, its application is entertained and applied in a court room, it is pervasive throughout every component of the mechanisms by which the power of the state is restricted.

That the presumption of innocence is a legal right (you use the phrase "courtroom standard" - fine) and not the SOP of a civilian police force serves to lengthen its reach, not shorten it.

...and to the degree that this principle is about restraining the moments at which the state may encroach upon rights to lawful findings of guilt: shooting someone at their front door is about as violative of an innocent person's rights as I can imagine state conduct being.

[notl4wy3r]

Granted that the innocent should not be shot. I don't think you'll find anyone to take the other side of that argument. Nonetheless, the question of "proving" guilt does not even enter into the consideration when the police are initially encountering a suspect. At that point it is about restoring order (making sure everyone is safe) and beginning to gather evidence. The notion "proof" having relevance in the initial police encounter with a civilian is the portion of the comment I was reacting to.