We are just going to disagree on this one, maybe you missed my many posts, his actions in my oppinion in this instance were indeed those of a Jerk. He may be the salt of the earth in every other action, but here, in this case, this is indeed how they come across.
The investigators were investigating innocent people while police call-takers were hanging up on the snipers and/or referring them to the toll-free "task force" phone number...
I see, so your stand is that you think that law enforcement should not have checked on known guns matching the type used by the sniper? Do you honestly think that they should not have followed up on them? I don't know what keyboard you are typing from, but this is a very reasonable to do. Your associate could have told them "no". He didn't, instead he decided to jerk them around, for no real benefit or purpose. How many gun owners visited by law enforcement had their guns unwillfully taken? There was no need to take a confrontational stand. What should have been a 10-20 minute conversation, and should have been civil was instantly turned into a confrontational one, for no purpose whatsoever.
You pick and choose your battles, and here this man created one for no reason. His fellow citizens are being killed in the streets and he wants to play games. I am hard pressed to believe this persons actions reflect in the least the actions of any civil human being in a similar situation that has any concern for his fellow citizens at all. I can just see George Washington or any other founding father antagonizing some sherriff who visits his door after a spat of killings around his home asking if he may see his gun behaving like this man... NOT. There was no reason for this antagonistic approach, none what so ever.
I will take your words that this man is a fine person, but his actions in this instance, to me, do not represent fine upstanding nor moral behavior.