Just curious in this case. Is keeping this guy in jail for week and a half with no bond based on the drive by identification of a 9 year old standard operating procedure for police?
In addition how would they have been able to prove their case? If no one saw the interaction and the other guy didn’t step up to put the story right could he have actually gone to jail for the uncorroborated claim of a 9 year of that the accused tried to get him in his truck?
It’s a function of probability. The odds of error go down as detail is added. Someone driving a white truck, or wearing a tan shirt or a host of other details don’t mean anything until they are all brought together at the same time. The odds of someone with all the attributes witnessed narrows the odds.
Bringing the boy around to look at the guy is, however, poisoning the well of identification.
Isn’t the disturbing part, not the fact that he was mistakenly locked up on the basis of what would seem like a fairly reasonable description, but the fact that according to the second story no crime had actually occurred at all.
Given what happened to him it must have taken a lot of courage for the second individual to come forward and potentially put themselves in the frame of what seem to have been a pretty knee-jerk response, if that hadn’t happened would Mr Rice still be sitting in a cell now with no prospect of defending himself against a spurious accusation. Presumably it’s unlikely that he would have been found guilty, but I doubt he would have been able to escape the stigma.
Police procedure has nothing to do with if the guy goes to jail or stays there. Generally the police gather the information and a judge makes the determination if the charge can be placed on a warrant. A judge takes into account all the facts and determines if bail should be set. Police procedure is not an issue. Police don’t approve warrants or set bail (exceptions of course, particularly in the case of minor offenses and low bail).
The police need probable cause to make an arrest. There certainly was PC. In order to get a conviction it needs to be proven beyond a resonable doubt. That is up to the prosecutor to build the case. Could he have been convicted by the testimony of a 9 year old? Possibly. Imagine the outrage if they ignored the childs claim.
This whole incident shows how “Stranger Danger” has become totally overblown – a kid falls off his scooter, some random guy stops to ask if he’s okay, and suddenly he’s a potential child molester?? Lesson learned for us law-abiding citizens is to look the other way whenever I see a kid getting mauled by a bear or something.
Hmm…the house of an accused child abductor mysteriously bursts into flame the same night he’s arrested. What an astounding coincidence. :rolleyes:
Sadly, the police are certain to be less likely to investigate now, since this whole incident made them look like idiots.