[Pan_Yans Wife]

The greatest thing about this thread, and the article, is that what had started out as something simple, transpired into something large. The whole point of the article is the "asking questions" line... and I don't think anyone's civil liberties got bent out of shape. Both sides asked and answered, and moved on. It is the author's right to be concerned about the police's behavior. It is equally the officer's duty to be cautious about the person they are questioning. No harm done in this instance.

[Henrietta]

"Both sides asked and answered, and moved on."

Yes, but only after one side illegally detained the other for an hour and a half. See the problem?

[Michael.SF.]

You make perfect sense. Chick Hearn said it best:

"No harm, no foul"

But I note the response you got from the poster: Yes, but only after one side illegally detained the other for an hour and a half.

See the police were wrong because this guy refused to cooperate with a reasonable request. He shows ID, he is gone, case closed. No harm no foul.

But a reasonable cop, acting on a call, has a man in custody who refuses co-operation. He plays a hunch and decides to check it out further. And some people place the blame on him.

See the problem?

In other words, the police are wrong for a minor inconvenience, which could have been avoided by the 'victim' in the first place. Yes, I believe henretta is a democrat lurker, she has to be. real Republicans make sense, like you do.