Is it appropriate for the police to look for an excuse to arrest an innocent citizen in response to the citizen "running his mouth"?
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
No, because if that was the case, the officer would have taken the boy down to the station for running his mouth. It isn't appropriate so the officer didn't do it. He let the boy "run his mouth" and then respectfully warned the boy not to continue so the situation wouldn't get out of hand. Obviously the officers involved exercised enough restraint as did the boy, to result in the youth getting back into his car and driving off, tape in hand, with no ticket, or arrest or physical confrontation.
The officer didn't arrest the young man, but he did threaten to do so if the young man continued "running his mouth." Is it appropriate for an officer to threaten to do something he is not supposed to do? Even if he decides not to follow through with the threat?
He let the boy "run his mouth" and then respectfully warned the boy not to continue so the situation wouldn't get out of hand. Obviously the officers involved exercised enough restraint as did the boy, to result in the youth getting back into his car and driving off, tape in hand, with no ticket, or arrest or physical confrontation.
How would the situation get out of hand if the young man was merely asking why he was being detained? I doubt police officers are so fragile that they would not be able to handle someone asking why they were being detained.
In fact, I thought the whole point of the initial questioning was to engage the young man in conversation for the purposes of evaluating his sobriety. The young man's questions were providing plenty of opportunities to pick up on slurred speech or beer breath.
Perhaps those of you defending the officers in this situation should get together and decide if the young man was supposed to spill his guts to the officer or keep his mouth shut. You all are certainly sending mixed signals.