[TigersEye]

This guy was taking photos and asking questions. Those things are not crimes, and don't warrant police intervention. See the difference.

OK, that was a strawman. The use of the word intervention is disingenuous though. They would be investigating in either case. Are you saying the police can't investigate anything unless it is known that a crime has already occurred?

[Henrietta]

"Are you saying the police can't investigate anything unless it is known that a crime has already occurred?"

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Of course police have the right to ask questions, and people have the right not to answer. And if a cop has a "reasonable and articulable suspicion" that a crime is about to be committed or has been committed, then he has the right to briefly detain the suspect for investigative purposes. But the standard is one that has a sense of immediacy to it; you can't say, "Well, I think that that person taking pictures might, at some point in the undefined future, commit a crime." You have to believe that it is about to be committed.

In the instant case, they definitely did not have the right to detain him, much less arrest him, under the Terry standard. The reporter had the right to refuse to answer questions and simply walk away.

By the way, I admire your admitting to the strawman argument. It takes courage to do that on a public forum. I mean that most sincerely, no sarcasm.