BTW I thought all people who get arrested are innocent until proven guitly are they not?
This response probably belongs on the political forum, but since the question was posed here, here goes.
This idea that people cannot form an opinion of guilt on someone's culpability, or guilt if you wish, is a perversion of both logic and what the concept asserts.
The ONLY thing the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' involves is in the actual court of law and the application of criminal penalties upon an individual. It is ONLY a technical legal concept that does NOT apply outside a criminal procedure.
Think for a moment. In the middle of some marketplace at high noon you and five-hundred other people personally see a man walk up to another man. The first man pulls a gun from his pocket and shoots the second man in plain sight of all 501 of you, and the entire scene is videotaped by someone in the crowd. One in the crowd tackles the gunman and holds him until the police arrive.
Is this first man guilty of shooting and killing the second man then or only when some jury finds him so? Certainly no court has the power to impose penalties (like prison time for instance) upon the gunman until a jury convicts and finds him to be criminally guilty, but that really has nothing to do with whether or not the man is guilty of the act.
Now, if you want to argue that people should withhold an opinion of guilt on someone until they know all the facts of the situation then you would have a point. But such a withholding of judgment is more a statement of 'I don't know everything yet, so I withhold judgment' and not the same as 'innocent until proven guilty' from a legal concept.
Based on what we know now, Elder is guilty. He can, and should be held accountable by non-court authorities based on the set of information known at this time. He should NOT be put in prison yet, as the state has yet to prove him criminally liable for his actions. If EVERYONE was forced to reserve judgment or actions against Elder until such time as a jury finds him criminally guilty, Saban would have to reinstate him to the team and the University would have to reinstate him in school and refrain from taking any action against him for any alleged crime for which he is accused.
If the 'innocent until proven guilty' standard applies completely, then one could go even further and argue that no accused individual should ever be held in jail before or during his trial - as he should be presumed innocent and no innocent man should be held in confinement against his will. You could not argue that he should be held in jail to prevent him for doing further harm - because he must be presumed to have done NO harm until the guilty verdict is handed down.