[robertpaulsen]

"He doesn't need a reason to be in that lot at that time."

Hmmmm. That wasn't what I asked the other poster. Or even close. I asked,"Does Occam's Razor support his reason for being in that lot at that time?"

Now, if you're going to respond to questions not even asked, perhaps you can address your post to others so I don't have to do this every time?

[BearCub]

I asked,"Does Occam's Razor support his reason for being in that lot at that time?"

Well, there was sort of an implied "the question is irrelevant" there. The answer doesn't matter because he didn't need a reason. Likewise, whether the girlfriend backed him up or not doesn't matter, nor does the fact that it is his girlfriend. He's allowed to be there without explaining why, period. This isn't debatable.

If the cop can articulate reasons he had a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed or was going to be committed, then he had a right to question the kid to the extent necessary to determine nothing was wrong. By threatening to make up reasons he essentially admitted that there were no valid reasons.

[Starwolf]

The other posters are correct, his reasons for being there are irrelevant. I thought that was clear in context, so I did not specifically reply to Does Occam's Razor support...

Moreover as everyoine should understand by now, Brett did not need to give a reason and the perp knew that, but chose to grossly over react to a perceived slight, which is why he was fired and is purportedly under investigation. Clearly a desirable result