Interesting.
Now, for a moment lets say we agree to live in a civilized society, where certain people are intrusted to protect us from certain other people. Would you then agree with the following statement:
If we're ever going to return to a state where we can walk safely any where at any time, rather than always fearing the possibility of a crime or a terrorist attack, we're going to have to expect answers from those people who seem to think they are too important, or do not want to be bothered by authorities, and refuse to provide civil answers to reasonable questions.
It works both ways, friend.
Second question:
At what point in the story, which was articulated, were the officers expected to determine this guy was a "reasonable guy" and on what basis were they to make this judgement?
At what point in the story, which was articulated, were the officers expected to determine this guy was a "reasonable guy" and on what basis were they to make this judgement?
In a civil society, the 'authorities' don't have the right to stop and frisk anyone anytime they want. Unless asking questions about weird things you see in public places and taking pictures of same is now a crime, they didn't really have much if any business at all detaining him. It's not up to random Joe Citizen to answer any question the 'authorities' might think to have unless tere is some reasonable suspicion that a crime had, in fact, or was likely to take place.
now for the first...
If we're ever going to return to a state where we can walk safely any where at any time, rather than always fearing the possibility of a crime or a terrorist attack, we're going to have to expect answers from those people who seem to think they are too important, or do not want to be bothered by authorities, and refuse to provide civil answers to reasonable questions.
In a word, no. You people are seeing terrorists behind every lamppost. You notice that according to the article, the 'authorities' massively de-escalated the situation once they discovered that he was a reporter. Why is it that a reporter should get that kind of deference when the rest of us out here dont? Could it be that the 'authorties' in question knew they were out of line, and had exceeded their authority in searching him because he didn't feel like quaking in his shoes and licking their boots in a properly submissive manner?
Just because some people are criminals, does not give them the right to treat us all like we are.
Some else on the thread already mentioned Franklin's quote earlier. It is frankly more apt today than at any time in our history outside of the lawlessness that occurred during reconstruction in the south.