But they are different because the standards for each are different. The "stop and question" requires only an "objective suspicion" of criminal activity, while an arrest requires "probable cause" that a crime has been committed and by that person.
Are you suggesting a police officer needs "probable cause" just to stop and question a person? And if you are, are you also saying the Supreme Court is wrong for permitting such a stop and question under circumstances less than probable cause?
--Boot Hill
Yes and yes. Unless there is reason to believe that I have committed, or am about to commit (e.g. pouring gasoline on a building) a crime, I do not where there is any need to have any interaction with the "authorities."