Something in this case about the defendant’s risk element does not add up.

On Thursday morning, David Coleman was in Butler County Prison on $100,000 bail, charged with three felonies — aggravated assault on a police officer, aggravated assault by vehicle while driving under the influence, and fleeing or attempting to elude police — and 11 other criminal counts after his SUV collided with a state police car on March 30.

Later Thursday, Coleman, 50, of Butler Township was set free, the case dismissed, the bond vacated.

The investigating officer failed to show for a preliminary hearing Thursday. After more than an hour’s delay, an assistant district attorney advised District Judge Kevin O’Donnell that the officer was at a required training conference in Harrisburg and apparently was unaware of the hearing.

Public defender Joseph Smith did next what you would expect a public defender to do. He did his job. Smith asked the judge to dismiss the charges and set free his client.

And O’Donnell threw out the case, rendering Coleman a free man.

In court on Thursday, police and prosecutors said they were immediately filing the same charges against the defendant — in essence, maintaining their allegations that Coleman presents a menace and a flight risk and needs to be kept under lock and key. The district attorney’s office confirmed Friday that new charges have been filed.

The disturbing element is the widening disparity between the prosecution’s allegations and the reality of a defendant set free.

Police say Coleman was impaired and was fleeing and eluding police when he drove around a Butler city patrol car and rammed a state police cruiser, injuring the trooper who was driving it.

Is the defendant a menace? Is he a flight risk? Police and prosecutors didn’t seem to have a problem convincing a judge of that when bond was set at $100,000.

Now, with what appears to be a temporary lapse by the prosecution, does that make this defendant any less of a menace or flight risk?

Continuances happen all the time in criminal courtrooms. Delays, scheduling conflicts, illnesses, absences and other circumstances, both foreseen and unforeseen, can throw a wrench into any proceeding. Justice is hardly immune.

In this specific case, the officer’s scheduling conflict should have been anticipated and a continuance should have been requested in advance. Even under the circumstance, a continuance could have been requested, and granted, at the outset of the hearing.

Bottom line: if the defendant needs to be locked away, then it was an impractical risk to free him for a day while charges are refiled; but if he’s not a risk, then why was he jailed on $100,000 bond in the first place?