4 ms·

> Investigators then showed two witnesses a photo lineup that included Dillon and several similar-looking individuals. Both witnesses identified Dillon as the s

> Investigators then showed two witnesses a photo lineup that included Dillon and several similar-looking individuals. Both witnesses identified Dillon as the suspect, which led to his arrest > “Police are not allowed under the Constitution to arrest somebody without probable cause,” Nate Freed-Wessler with the American Civil Liberties Union ...?? They had probable cause: two witnesses to the original crime identified him, after the AI identified him. He was rightfully detained, and then proved his innocence, and was released. The system worked as intended. Is the ACLU's goal to never detain someone, ever?

JohnFen 1y ago
He wasn't just detained, he was arrested. Being arrested all by itself brings a great deal of damage into a person's life even if charges are never actually pressed or the person was found innocent in court. > The system worked as intended. If that's the case, then the system is very broken.
- polski-g 1y ago
  What evidence would you need before arresting someone accused of abducting children?
  - JohnFen 1y ago
    Enough evidence to show that the person is more likely to be guilty than not. In the case at hand, they didn't have that at all.
gus_massa 1y ago
Witness are very unreliable. Let's say the photo lineup has 6 persons, that appear to be the usual. The police encourage the witness to choose one of them , that appear to be the usual. There is a 16.6% of a coincidence. This guy has only a 2.7% probability to win the lottery, but if both witness had coincided to selected another person, it would have changed only the name in the post.