Talk:Person of interest

how should the public understand the term

I would simply interpret it to mean that the police are curious about this person, have noticed traits, behaviour, history, location or such that merits further attention, observation, inquiry, but that it does not necessarily mean they have reason to suspect. It is a lead, and one that may, one way or another, help them solve a crime. GBC (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC) thank yu very much... >> HOLLAH <<

IM IN LOVE

I would agree with the above definition. The fact that the term doesn't currently have a legal standing doesn't mean it shouldn't have one or at least be a useful term as the above interpretation would indicate. The definition is written in a critical and highly partisan manner. It does not not project any reasonable level of objectivity or openness to the idea of the need for such a term which has come into common use. It infers it is a charged term, is not needed and there is implied criticism of its use and source. It draws conclusions that are one-sided. It should be marked as such by Wiki and should be rewritten along the lines of the above more common and objective understanding. Flyzone100 (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Flyzone