In a civil society, the 'authorities' don't have the right to stop and frisk anyone anytime they want.
That was not the case here. The officers responded to a call of a person 'acting suspicously.' They were simply responding to others fear. They only frisked him when he refused cooperation. Maybe his 'right' but not too smart.
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.
I recall recently a similar incident. A mideastern man and a woman were taking pics of a TVA dam at 4 or 5:00 on a Sunday morning. That was not in and of itself illegal, but it was suspicious. The cop took his name and reported it to the FBI. The man was wanted for questioning by the FBI and later arrested for false passport or ID. According to your statements, the cop was out of line. In my mind he played a hunch and was correct, which is good police work.
It's not up to random Joe Citizen to answer any question the 'authorities' might think to have
Although true, think about how life will be if everyone refused to cooperate with the police under all circumstances, eveb reasonable ones, such as this.
You people
You people? Who are 'you people'? anyone who disagrees with you, or are you drawing your own conclusions?
are seeing terrorists behind every lamppost.
No. We are keeping our eyes open. By doing so it may make it more difficult for real terrorists.
You notice that according to the article, the 'authorities' massively de-escalated the situation once they discovered that he was a reporter.
In other words when he went from being a suspect, to being a cooperative person.
Why is it that a reporter should get that kind of deference when the rest of us out here dont?
Brief story. I was at the local video store when I saw two cops approaching a guy standing by a car. They asked him some questions and he produced ID. One cop called it in. The guy then took off and was soon tackled by the other cop. In attempting to cuff the guy, the guy stood up, with two cops on him. A third cop came over and some punches were thrown. The man was soon subdued, after some continued struggle.
A woman standing next to me thought the cops to be way out of line and commented to her friend that "somebody should report this". That was when I decided to act. I approached one of the officers, gave him my card, told him what the woman said and offered to be a witness to the whole incident.
The cop was very grateful that I stepped forward. He said too few do in support of them.
People can see things differently, you and others see the reporter incident as "harrasment" I see it as police being a little cautious in these trying times.
They only frisked him when he refused cooperation. Maybe his 'right' but not too smart.
I wasn't arguing that this was a 'smart' thing to do, just that he had the right to question why he was being interrogated. Personally, I'd take a bit more conversational tone in such a circumstance, though I'd probably be a little more assertive of my rights than many might consider to be 'smart'. The first question you'd normally be asked is to identify yourself. I'm generally perfectly happy with telling an officer who I am, but would follow it up with a question as to why he wants to know. If I answer a question to assist him, he should be just as willing to answer a question for me. Specifically, it is my right as a citizen to know why I'm being detained. If I think what is being requested is reasonable, I'm willing to be reasonable in return.
In general though, cops don't have the right to search someone just because they aren't willing to be interrogated. The fact that this can make things more difficult for police is just one of those things they must suffer if we are to live in a free republic. It would make the job of the police easier if they had transponders implanted in everyone, that would allow them to locate and surveil anyone they want any time they have the itch, but such a society would not be a free one.
I recall recently a similar incident. A mideastern man and a woman were taking pics of a TVA dam at 4 or 5:00 on a Sunday morning. That was not in and of itself illegal, but it was suspicious. The cop took his name and reported it to the FBI. The man was wanted for questioning by the FBI and later arrested for false passport or ID. According to your statements, the cop was out of line. In my mind he played a hunch and was correct, which is good police work.
Pretty much. A lot of the time when they play a 'hunch', they are exceeding what is their legitimate authority. Police often get similar results when they run those roadblocks for 'drunk drivers'. Personally, I find it insulting to have the police be able to conduct those kind of fishing expeditions. The problem is, that the supreme court has pretty much eliminated constitutional rights for those in automobiles. This is a mistake on their part in my not so humble opinion as it generates a heck of a lot of ill will towards legitimate excercises of 'authority'.
The 'you people' phrase was probably a bit over the line as regards civil discourse, but I get frustrated sometimes when people don't see that it is in their best interests to always assert their rights when they see fit. I'm not saying that noone should ever voluntarily assist police, just that they should jealously guard the rights they still have left. That is especially true now, probably more so than in a long time in this country.
I'll not comment at this time on the story you relate, other than to agree that many times, what people see is based largely on their expectations.