According the LEO and the article, Philando Castile was not a robbery suspect. He simply fit a description of a robbery suspect. Big difference.
How? And nowhere does it conclude that he wasn’t. You’re pulling that out of your safe space.
The “legal” definition of a “suspect” varies. Mostly someone more likely to have committed a crime than this guy was (from what we know, now), but usually included in the many definitions is a lower standard as in “a police officer’s belief” that someone may have committed a crime.
In definition 1. or a. maybe not a “suspect”
In definition 2. or b. yes, a “suspect”
Everyone is correct. He both was and wasn’t a suspect.