I wish I had other types of examples handy, but I don't, so I'll start with this one.
What I want you to think about is regardless of whether the suspect is guilty or not, did everybody involved in the chain of processes do the right thing or not? The cops? The mob?
Me, I don't see anything wrong with putting out pictures of persons of interest, but I would expect that the authorities press charges against those involved in the attack on the suspect nonetheless. It would be nothing less than a heinous lapse of justice were anything else to be the case. Under the circumstances I don't think such actions could ever be justified as there is absolutely no suggestion that the mob acted in any way other than aggressively.
Had the suspect been armed and dangerous and threatened the persons involved, this may have been a different story. But to okay these events on the grounds of the precipitating crime to which the suspect has not yet been proven involved with, is socially irresponsible and sets a worrying precedent.
As humans, we will never willingly limit our power.
By being a citizen you have a relationship between you and the state in which your powers are limited. If you don't like it you can pack up and move to an anarcho syndicalist commune in isolation from the outside world. But people don't. People are very willing to have their power limited in return for security for instance. I'm much happier with the institution of law and order, than I ever would be with a free for all.
