“’Sir, I’m going to ask you one last time, then I’m going to take you into custody. Do we understand each other?’, the officer said.”
Perhaps you know. Obviously, the photographer was not in custody when the officer said this. So was the photographer free to go? Is there a third disposition between ‘in custody’ and ‘free to go’?
Well, it depends. For instance, when Fussell was first confronted, if he had said he has the right to leave, and proceeding to vacate the premises, this may have given the MTA officers an excuse to detain him for “attempting to flee”. We’ll never know, but it is conceivable.
Fussell may have been “free to go”, but he may not have believed he could.
Finally, why should he leave? He’s a taxpaying citizen. The officers are working for him, and Fussell has every right to be at the light rail station. After all, as a taxpaying, he’s part owner. Fussell wasn’t braking any laws, and was simply taking photos.
In this country, we are presumed INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. It’s not the other way around, but many in law enforcing believe otherwise.
I salute Fussell for his courage and convictions.