The bottom line is that we just don't know. There are good cops and bad cops, just like there are good "citizens" and crooks....And guessing, and taking sides based on pure speculation is always problematic....
Yes, there are good and bad people on both sides of the law. But regardless of what anyone pulls up on YouTube (documenting mainland PD)...I stand by my previous statement:
...HPD is rather professional compared to other departments. There are no LAPD style beat downs or NYPD broomstick games.
I'm not saying they're perfect, but the number of substantiated claims against
HPD officers for "on-duty" misconduct is almost nonexistent.
Um, I'm not sure if you see how the courts work here, but many times it is guilty until proven guilty lol. People are also proven guilty until innocent in the media (George Zimmerman, Christopher Deedy cases come to mind).
I've always been open about my run-ins with the law and going with the process so I can assure you that I'm well aware of how the system works. I speak strictly from personal experience and I can say for a fact that criminal procedures, from arrest to final verdict, works a certain way and that process is basically the same for everyone regardless of true guilt or innocence. The whole gripe about "guilty until proven innocent" or "guilty until proven guilty" is just a load of bull perpetuated by people who feel slighted a system that they are ignorant of.
As for Zimmerman and Deedy? I believe they made bad choices, but they'll get their day in court. That's the same as for you, me or anyone else here. Media/public opinions amount to jack squat in court where it matters becuse the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Example: Casey Anthony. The public and media had her branded as a baby killer, but the prosecution failed to prove their case.
I just had an individual wrongly jailed, whom I was trying to bail out. He filed an appeal on a misdemeanor charge, but they still incarcerated him. He was locked up for about seven days out of a 10 day sentence that he likely shouldn't have had to serve anyways. Do I think they "think you are innocent" no. Do I think they have some rules to follow or they have to pay a lot of money out, yes.
If the person you were trying to bail out was filing an appeal, that means he went to trial and found guilty. Or is that a mistake and he was doing something else? Because it doesn't make sense, one does not file an appeal during an arraignment/plea hearing...they only hear the charges and enter a plea. And people generally post bail/bond shortly after arrest/booking. The amount is based on a set schedule for the offense/prior history. Posting bail it's not "paying" to get out, just a deposit for the promise to appear in court. You get it back either when you show up for court (if the judge ROR's you) or at the end of trial. The only time is "costs" would be when one bonds out, then they pay 10-20% of whatever the set bail might be. But that's to the bondsman not the court. It's not semantics...No one pays to get out of jail.
All that aside though...NONE of the process you're describing has anything to do with a perceived guilt or innocence, it's the same for everyone.