Suppose a bank was robbed by one person described as 5'10", medium build, wearing a dark blue hoodie, running north on Main St. and two people were seen minutes later running north on Main from the bank matching that description.
It's perfectly reasonable and there's a societal interest for both to be stopped and contacted, even though it's CERTAIN that at least one of them is uninvolved.
You added maim or jail.
So coming and approaching is the right thing, but we need to work on reducing fear both sides have of each other first.
Doing otherwise is making it so the true cost of policing is funded by a reverse lottery.
(You've constructed the scenario to be quite benign, but even so the victim has been assaulted and is likely pumped full of adrenaline with nerves shot for a few hours. And that's basically the simplest thing that can occur)
Completely agree with this point, but it's irrelevant to the subject of unaccountable police (although it's quite relevant to the media's derailing the issue into racist tripe)
Any single case where police and prosecutors harm someone who is neither subsequently found guilty nor compensated for the harm suffered is an injustice. It doesn't matter if its 10% of cases, 0.01%, or a single innocent person who was detained for a mere 2 hours of their life. The relative frequency isn't important - these cases simply shouldn't exist, the same way a hypothetical mayor's brother not being investigated for murder shouldn't exist.
Better top-down policies and training won't fix the police or justice system - they need better incentives to change behavior at the lowest levels. The kind of incentives where they can no longer push the damage from their moral hazard onto unlucky victims, and are instead bound by the laws they purport to uphold.