There's always a possibility that they're dangerous and waiting for the time to strike.
This is just true though...
This is true any time one living being interacts with another living being. Structuring your behavior around what is technically possible simply is not reasonable. Some amount of vulnerability is a necessary component of productive interactions with other living beings. I'm not even talking humans here. Living beings period.
Yeah, technically anyone you interact with could be criminally insane. But cops need a reason to stop people, and a good reason to arrest them. Hence famous "broken taillight" stops, and "Am I under arrest, or can I go?"
So by definition (assuming proper conduct) the police have some amount of reason to be more suspicious than of a random passerby.
And what I was emphasizing is that, once a conflict gets physical, it's very dangerous even if it appears to cool off. Even if the cops are at fault for escalating (say, shooting someone unjustly), the situation needs to be brought under control with cuffs. People, cops included, can act irrationally during and after a physical altercation. Establishing restraints removes the danger and lets everyone calm down.
And uh, at that point they really should provide first aid... Pretty sure that didn't happen in some cases, even after cuffing, which really is fucked up.
Suspects are people who we have shot or are going to shoot soon, duh.
Glad you're having fun
I think "suspects" are people being investigated...
There shouldn't be any negative connotation to it, people are innocent until proven guilty. I guess there is a stigma, but it's a lot more honest than saying "murderer and victim".
Victim is technically correct too though. Even an aggressive suspect who's gunned down while murdering police is a "victim" of gunshot wounds, and a victim of the cops.
I think "suspect" is more clear and less biased, but eh. I don't get bent over shape about "victim", just prejudging people as "murderer".
In this case, the only reason police showed up is because someone suspected there was a gun. Not a crime. Just the suspicion that someone had a gun.
I don't really understand why the people suspected of having a gun wouldn't be considered suspects... Or why the police would investigate if they weren't looking for a crime, like illegal possession of a firearm or something.
Like, maybe they shouldn't have ordered the people onto the ground and pointed weapons at them. Whole situation appears horribly escalated by the police! But they did, because they suspected the people of being dangerous. So... "suspects". Again, probably a terrible error in judgement.
After it's been determined there was no gun, and there was never a report of a crime to begin with, why use the word suspect?
They're not suspects anymore, no. But they were suspects at the time (or so I'm arguing), so it's fair to use that word when talking about the past event.