No offense DD, but if they assume the eyewitness report was wrong, then they can’t even know what to look for, so they should give up, right???
I mean, say the report is wrong...but still, why on earth would they assume a tan Toyota with 4 men should be compared with a burgundy Nissan with a woman and four little kids?!
Well I guess if you’re in an all or nothing world.
I don’t fault them for the car color. They are close enough if you think the car color may have been wrong.
As I said originally I do fault them for not knowing there weren’t 4 adult males in the car. Even with tinted windows at night they should have been able to see there weren’t 4 guys in that car.
‘I mean, say the report is wrong...but still, why on earth would they assume a tan Toyota with 4 men should be compared with a burgundy Nissan with a woman and four little kids?!’
Good question. & if asked, not even the police officer would use the idiot defense. I.e.: ‘I pulled a burgundy car over because I thought the witness was so unreliable that when he/she said ‘tan’, he/she really meant ‘burgundy’.
That defense is unworkable b/c the next two questions would be, WHY did you think the witness said ‘tan’ but meant ‘burgundy’, and Did you make any effort to clarify the difference between tan and burgundy?
It’s an unwinnable hole. The only hope is to stop digging.