Is 'mob rule' ever okay?

Is 'innocent until proven guilty' right if you're a suspected paedophile?

I watched a program last night about policing, and found myself disturbed by what I saw. A policeman had been called to a disturbance in a town where a man had been held by another person. He had been suspected of taking photographs of children in a nearby park, and had been shut in a telephone box by some people to hold him until the police arrived. Apparently the telephone box was the only place they could find to put him in to stop him running away.  So far so understandable. 

When the lone policeman arrived this suspect was in the telephone box with a large crowd of people surrounding it. Many were filming on their phones, and continued to do so as the policeman approached.  There was a general rumbling in this crowd which was getting louder by the minute. When the policeman attempted to take the man out of the telephone box the rumblings escalated in to shouts, with people pulling at both of them, spitting and generally behaving in an aggressive manner. Okay, this man was suspected of taking the photos, but it suddenly started to escalate in to what can only be described as mob rule.

There were shouts about him being a paedophile, shouts that the police were protecting people like him, shouts that paedophiles should be strung up and so on, all being live streamed to social media. The man was named and his address shouted out. Again all streamed live to social media. The policeman had to call for backup as the situation became dangerous for him and the man accused. It got very ugly. 

It turned out, in the end that this accused man had no camera, no mobile phone, no Internet, at his home or on his person, or nearby, when he was held by his accusers. He had never had any cases brought against him, or even any investigations, of suspicious behaviour to do with children, or indeed adults. He had no convictions, no charges, no cases, no investigations, nothing. His garden backed on to the park. That was the only thing. The police had to put him in protective custody. The man's house had graffiti painted on it and the windows smashed. The films of him, naming him as a paedophile, went viral. He had to move, although he was forever named as a suspect by social media. 

Now he could very well have been a paedophile  This man may never have been caught. He may have 'flown under the radar' until that day. But he could also have been innocent. What if he was? Now an innocent man was branded something horrendous forever. Forever because it was on line, out there, on the Internet. I understand that people feel the police don't do enough to catch these people, that the police are too busy, that there's not enough of them. But there have been cases of vigilantes who have mistakenly accused people of paedophilia. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Its such an emotive subject but mob rule is not the right way to go. We have laws in this country and people cannot be allowed to take those laws in to their own hands. If this were to happen our country would become lawless. Frustrating as it is you need proof not suspicions. We need to be vigilant but within the law of our land. We need to protect ourselves and our children but without aggressive lawlessness. We also need to be 100% sure. I've sat on a jury which found someone guilty of grooming a child. I understand the frustration of police and the general public, but in a progressive modern society we still need to adhere to 'innocent until proven guilty' by law. Although this is really hard just imagine if it was your loved one accused, by a scared aggressive mob, for a suspicion alone. Get proof. Proof cannot be disputed. 

Dictionary definition 
Vigilante - 
A member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.