How is this a bad decision. Ignoring the guy involved (who apparently was not involved in the shooting, who while having a gun illegally did not have explanation for doing so, who was otherwise not involved in illegal activity, and who may or may not have had it for personal protection in an unsafe neighborhood or city). Anyway, ignoring that, the ruling itself says the police cannot trap you and violate your 4th amendment. I think of this as one of those traffic stops where the police want to look around in your car. You know, if you have nothing to hide, whats the problem? You can’t leave, you are harassed into answering because you are stopped, held, as in this case, at gun point since the officer put his hand on his gun. That is threatening—in fact I had a cop do that once when I was on a motorcycle. Came up to me, gun loosened, still holstered,, but hand on gun threatening. You really do not have choice but to answer questions. No is an escalating course of action. (I was a couple years out of the military with curly long hair and beard, definitely not suite and tie attired.) Anyway, is this really a bad decision or just the guy involved is troublesome?
He was asked a question and he answered that question. If the police can no longer ask questions or respond in an appropriate manner to the answers given, then they no longer have the ability to do their job. The Constitution protect the right of the individual to not answer. It does not protect the individual from being questioned.
His response should have been:
I do not wish to be encountered
I do not answer questions from Law Enforcement or agents of the state without the presence of my attorney
Am I being detained or am I free to go
I do not consent to a search of my person or my property