Crime prevention at what cost? Keep the bank safe but imperil, maim, or jail the innocent medium build hoodie wearer of your argument? I think you're operating on an fundamental assumption rather than really thinking through the problem.

Stop and contact is entirely warranted, IMO.

You added maim or jail.

I'll leave it at imperil. You can argue skewed coverage, but from where I sit, being approached by police in the situation described seems extremely dangerous.

We're already into several iterations of the feedback loop. In a world where police works properly, you should not be afraid of being approached by them in the first place. An officer should ask you a few questions in a civilized manner, the whole encounter going like two adults talking about their common interest (catching the bad guy).

So coming and approaching is the right thing, but we need to work on reducing fear both sides have of each other first.

I agree that there's danger there, but what's the workable alternative? Never stop and contact anyone until their identity or involvement can be 100% verified prior to contact?

The scenarios will always exist, but the uncompensated damage to innocents does not need to. The "reasonableness" of the stop is effectively internal to the police, and is not a substitute for actually making the innocent person whole again.

Doing otherwise is making it so the true cost of policing is funded by a reverse lottery.

(You've constructed the scenario to be quite benign, but even so the victim has been assaulted and is likely pumped full of adrenaline with nerves shot for a few hours. And that's basically the simplest thing that can occur)