Why isn't that a realistic or correct solution? If you're going to make that assertion, you need to back it up with an argument, otherwise you're simply offering an opinion. While that's all well and good, it's not really informative or a productive contribution to this discussion.

If the author could provide reasonable proof of who he was, what he was doing and his standing in the community, then there should be nothing wrong with letting him go, pending further investigation. Take his picture, if you like, but don't detain him any longer than absolutely necessary unless there's overwhelming probable cause to hold him. A vague description is hardly that.

Yes, I'm biased, I believe that having gainful employment in any of a number of fields does make one a tiny bit less suspicious and much more easily found if the investigation goes further.

> If the author could provide reasonable proof of who he was, what he was doing and his standing in the community, then there should be nothing wrong with letting him go, pending further investigation. Take his picture, if you like, but don't detain him any longer than absolutely necessary unless there's overwhelming probable cause to hold him. A vague description is hardly that.

The argument is that he simply could have easily lied to them and they have no way to verify that. When there is a crime happening and the cops respond the smartest and best course of action is to look for the suspect(s) who are possibly nearby. This guy could have possibly been one of them. Thus they asked for his info, validated who he was, crossed him off of the list and moved on. There wasn't any probable cause to hold him, which they didn't do.

I don't see how it get's much more cut and dry than that.