[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.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Thank you! To me, it is just logic... why cry about what didn't happen, what could have happened, what might have happened... when there is really no issue!

That's liberals for you... just add emotion and argument, do not support your claims with FACTS.

[Henrietta]

"See the police were wrong because this guy refused to cooperate with a reasonable request."

No Mike, their request was unreasonable, per the Supreme Court.

"In other words, the police are wrong for a minor inconvenience, which could have been avoided by the 'victim' in the first place. "

The Supreme Court does not consider the illegal seizure of a citizen to be a minor inconvenience. I recommend you read the Terry case to see exactly what sort of language they used to condemn this sort of thing.

I'm pro-civil liberties, so I must be a DemoRat...give me a break! Your arguments are the ones that are devoid of logic, facts, and supported by law.