If we're ever going to return to a state where we are Citizens of the Republic, rather than merely subjects of civil authority, we're going to have to question the actions of those authorities who seem to think they are too important to provide civil answers to reasonable people.
I'm sure some of you folks out there will think the cops did just wonderful because they didn't decide to bash the guy's head in or arrest him for having the nerve to believe he had the riht to question them, but that is exactly a symtom of the problem.
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?