What is proven in court is law, what is not proven in court or what is later appealed is not. It can not be illegal without it specifically violating a law, and the violation proven to have been perpetrated by the suspect. Thinking someone is guilty is not enough to be guilty. That's pretty simple, and there is no weaseling going on.You have been arguing, in this thread, that what the court says is proof, and what the court says is the ONLY proof. Now, you're saying that it's not proof, and trying to weasal word it to make it appear that I've flip-flopped, and then ending by saying that the court is the authority (except when it isn't)
It's absurd to say something was illegal and then disregard what illegal actually means.