>having a parent head an investigation
You're right, I exaggerated for the sake of rhetoric. I should not have, and I apologize for doing so.
>And where did I suggest that?
By bringing this up
>>If you are the parent of this missing kid and the police tell you your child might be there but they can't look into it, you would be ok with that?
You're suggesting that the emotional state of parents of missing children validates detaining someone without probable cause (as the comment you originally replied to described).
>I know, reasonable suspicion is really vague and abused but what is the alternative?
This is not what you were originally saying. You wrote that on the basis of it being a missing child, and on the basis of the parents being not okay with inaction, detaining without probable cause was justified.
If that wasn't the message you wanted people to get from your comment, you should have written it differently.
>Anytime a cop sees suspicious activity they need to head over to the court and get a warrant. They would never get anything done.
It turns out there's a great deal of law and precedent that goes into great detail about what a cop can and can't do and when and why. Law and precedent that were decided in light of both the harm of abuse of power and the harm of impotent enforcement.
Saying cops should have more power without first addressing why the existing reasons for limiting that power should suddenly no longer apply loses you a lot of credibility. And if you don't know what those reasons are, rightfully so.
That said, do continue to share your opinion, I'm definitely not saying you should curb your speech, just saying that if you want it to be more effective, there's steps you can take.