suspect

Part of a campus e-mail I received today:

"Please be advised that a student was the victim of a Strong Arm Robbery late last night in the parking lot outside of ***. The suspect pushed the victim and grabbed her hand bag."

I'm familiar with this use of the word "suspect" but it always sounds a bit odd to me. The person described here is not someone who is suspected of having pushed the student, but the actual perpetrator of the act. If someone was arrested in connection with the crime, I'd think it appropriate to call that person a "suspect". But why use the word in the description of the actual event?

I agree; that usage doesn't seem right to me either - even though it does seem like something I would hear.

I agree too.

Maybe the perpetrator's identity is what is really suspect for the moment until further information os gathered?

a perfect example of what happens when you don't think about the words that you're using

You do hear that kind of thing all the time though.

It may be policy but if so there's something definitely amiss seeing as they've clearly stated the guilt of this "suspect". Or from another angle: the person to whom they refer is the perpetrator, they don't here identify this as any particular person. I still reckon they aught to think about the words they use ... or the policy ... before they open their mouths.

<<The suspect pushed the victim and grabbed her hand bag>>

Also, the victim could be lying...so the "perpetrator" really is *suspect* until we hear his/her side of the story...

Remember the Susan Smith case where she drowned her two sons and blamed an African-American 'suspect' for kidnapping them?

This is true but using (i.e. misusing) the word "suspect" doesn't get you in the clear here. They've definitely stated that the crime was committed (and committed by this "suspect").

The moral: don't carry hand bags late at night (the carparks are full of suspects).