"We live in the United States. You are innocent until proven guilty. "
If you go digging into someone's background for no reason then you are not assuming innocent until proven guilty, you are making them a (potential) suspect. That's my point.
The experience of your friend (the detective) is an example of what I'm talking about here. Where was the presumption of innocence for him? Sounds like he got nailed even though there was scant (or maybe even no) evidence. Did they go ahead and conduct lots of background checking (i.e., fishing expedition) on him in lieu of any evidence and just because of the word of one person? If they did, do you agree that was the correct way to pursue it?
I agree with you that it's amazing and disgusting that it took him 1-1/2 years to get cleared of wrongdoing but that's part of the issue I'm talking about here. My view is that they made an assumption that he might be a suspect and he had to clear his name, whereas the burden of proof should have been on the accuser (of course, I am making some assumptions about the situation for your friend).
I don't know why you think I am asking them to skirt their duties. I am saying that the LEOs on the scene will make a determination of where to go from there, and I don't think that's skirting their duties at all. They usually can know what happened pretty quickly. Criminals can cover their tracks on TV but that happens rarely in real life, according to the detectives I've talked to.
Quote: "If you go digging into someone's background for no reason then you are not assuming innocent until proven guilty, you are making them a (potential) suspect. That's my point."
That`s nonsense. Being a suspect is not a presumption of guilt. I think you have these two words ( suspect and guilty ) confused.
By your mentality, if a crime seen showed no evidence of foul play, no investigation would be needed. So if a crook/killer set up the crime scene to cover his/her tracks, they would never be caught. Right?
Quote: "The experience of your friend (the detective) is an example of what I'm talking about here."
Huh, no it is not. He was "charged" with a crime without a "proper investigation". The DNA evidence was not there when he was charged, when it came back and showed he could not have committed the crime, the charges where dropped. But while he was fighting it, he was released from the force and was nearly wiped out financially.
I never said the family was guilty of anything or were even suspects. I said they should just check the backround and ask a few questions and if nothing showed up, then they could move along.
Quote: "Where was the presumption of innocence for him?"
Yes, you are right on that one. The police took the word of the woman (one who was a felon) over one of their own to avoid some nasty P.R. in the local media.
Quote: "Sounds like he got nailed even though there was scant (or maybe even no) evidence."
The police didn`t do their job. It was a fouled up mess of an investigation. Totally sloppy work, period.
Quote: "Did they go ahead and conduct lots of background checking (i.e., fishing expedition) on him in lieu of any evidence and just because of the word of one person?"
Yes, they did. And found nothing.. Then they simply took the word of the woman, who had a criminal past, and charged him with a crime.
Quote; "If they did, do you agree that was the correct way to pursue it?"
They had to check his backround, he was accused of sexually assaulting a woman. They did their job on that part.
Quote: "I agree with you that it's amazing and disgusting that it took him 1-1/2 years to get cleared of wrongdoing but that's part of the issue I'm talking about here."
It was the DNA lab they used that was the big problem. They had the spokesperson from the lab on TV trying to defend themselves. Their excuse? " We are doing the best we can".......
Quote: "My view is that they made an assumption that he might be a suspect and he had to clear his name, whereas the burden of proof should have been on the accuser (of course, I am making some assumptions about the situation for your friend)."
No , it was an issue that everything the woman said put my friend in her presence at the times she stated. Which was all true to a point. Except the part about him making a sexual advance on her, which the DNA evidence showed he could not have done what she said. But since the lab took forever to get the results back, he was in a ringer. It was a typical case of a cop hating prosecuting attorney who wanted to get their name in the paper for nabbing a cop. And the Chief of police was a slimeball without a spine and caved into the media pressure. If they simply took the time to look at the evidence and get the lab results back in a reasonable time, he would have not had to go through what he did. It was sickening to see.
Quote; "I don't know why you think I am asking them to skirt their duties."
You stated they should leave the parents alone because they were grieving. That is not an excuse for the police to not do their jobs.
Quote: "I am saying that the LEOs on the scene will make a determination of where to go from there, and I don't think that's skirting their duties at all."
Actually there are protocols on what is done at certain crime scenes. They cannot shirk those duties.
I think you are letting your emotions play into how the police should have handled the case with the young girl and that is something you cannot do. Emotions must be put on the back burner, that is why there are protocols that must be followed.
Quote: "They usually can know what happened pretty quickly."
In many cases , yes. But they still have procedures they must follow.
Quote: "Criminals can cover their tracks on TV but that happens rarely in real life, according to the detectives I've talked to."
That is because most detectives thoroughly investigate crime scenes and tend to leave no stones unturned. Which was my initial point to this whole exchange we have had !!