Two years of commuting and for the first time ...
04-10-10, 05:36 PM
#76
Young Fred
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Slippery slope arguments get a little old. Police stopping people on bicycles to ask a few short questions (not an "interrogation") does not lead to eating babies.
In this situation, the questions asked were relatively harmless, and as has been established, the bicyclist was not required to answer them. (except to identify himself) I've had similar stops myself, and I can see how it might do some good. If the officer find that you are unreasonably nervous, or antagonistic, he might wonder what you have to hide.
That cycling is still considered unusual enough to be suspicious is unfortunate, but it's our job to change that. Saying "no, it's not" over and over again accomplishes nothing. Riding safely, lawfully, and noticeably, does.
In this situation, the questions asked were relatively harmless, and as has been established, the bicyclist was not required to answer them. (except to identify himself) I've had similar stops myself, and I can see how it might do some good. If the officer find that you are unreasonably nervous, or antagonistic, he might wonder what you have to hide.
That cycling is still considered unusual enough to be suspicious is unfortunate, but it's our job to change that. Saying "no, it's not" over and over again accomplishes nothing. Riding safely, lawfully, and noticeably, does.
04-10-10, 05:40 PM
#77
Call me The Breeze
I agree. Being a wise guy is a judgement call depending on what you have to lose and the mood you're in I guess.
04-10-10, 05:42 PM
#78
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Slippery slope arguments get a little old. Police stopping people on bicycles to ask a few short questions (not an "interrogation") does not lead to eating babies.
In this situation, the questions asked were relatively harmless, and as has been established, the bicyclist was not required to answer them. (except to identify himself) I've had similar stops myself, and I can see how it might do some good. If the officer find that you are unreasonably nervous, or antagonistic, he might wonder what you have to hide.
That cycling is still considered unusual enough to be suspicious is unfortunate, but it's our job to change that. Saying "no, it's not" over and over again accomplishes nothing. Riding safely, lawfully, and noticeably, does.
In this situation, the questions asked were relatively harmless, and as has been established, the bicyclist was not required to answer them. (except to identify himself) I've had similar stops myself, and I can see how it might do some good. If the officer find that you are unreasonably nervous, or antagonistic, he might wonder what you have to hide.
That cycling is still considered unusual enough to be suspicious is unfortunate, but it's our job to change that. Saying "no, it's not" over and over again accomplishes nothing. Riding safely, lawfully, and noticeably, does.
04-10-10, 05:42 PM
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Slippery slope arguments get a little old. Police stopping people on bicycles to ask a few short questions (not an "interrogation") does not lead to eating babies.
In this situation, the questions asked were relatively harmless, and as has been established, the bicyclist was not required to answer them. (except to identify himself) I've had similar stops myself, and I can see how it might do some good. If the officer find that you are unreasonably nervous, or antagonistic, he might wonder what you have to hide.
That cycling is still considered unusual enough to be suspicious is unfortunate, but it's our job to change that. Saying "no, it's not" over and over again accomplishes nothing. Riding safely, lawfully, and noticeably, does.
In this situation, the questions asked were relatively harmless, and as has been established, the bicyclist was not required to answer them. (except to identify himself) I've had similar stops myself, and I can see how it might do some good. If the officer find that you are unreasonably nervous, or antagonistic, he might wonder what you have to hide.
That cycling is still considered unusual enough to be suspicious is unfortunate, but it's our job to change that. Saying "no, it's not" over and over again accomplishes nothing. Riding safely, lawfully, and noticeably, does.
04-10-10, 06:28 PM
#80
Young Fred
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Is there any reason you'd not answer questions like those given by the OP? I agree that it really isn't the officer's business, but what harm does it really do to you? You're not giving up any right. You still have the right to refuse to answer his questions, you have just chosen not to exercise that right.
Who knows, maybe there is a guy riding a bike around breaking into cars. In which case, you are helping the officer do his job. Even if there hasn't been a crime reported, an officer has a duty to look for things out of the ordinary. I've seen enough hunches come to fruition that I'm personally willing to tolerate a few false positives when they cost me no more than a few minutes of my time. That was the situation here. The OP wasn't even pulled over, but politely approached at a stop sign.
Yes, it does seem that you are an anti-government reactionary. It seems that your sole reason for protesting is that there is a slippery slope connecting all rights. If we choose to not exercise one right, then it must mean that we are in the process of giving up all rights.
Who knows, maybe there is a guy riding a bike around breaking into cars. In which case, you are helping the officer do his job. Even if there hasn't been a crime reported, an officer has a duty to look for things out of the ordinary. I've seen enough hunches come to fruition that I'm personally willing to tolerate a few false positives when they cost me no more than a few minutes of my time. That was the situation here. The OP wasn't even pulled over, but politely approached at a stop sign.
Yes, it does seem that you are an anti-government reactionary. It seems that your sole reason for protesting is that there is a slippery slope connecting all rights. If we choose to not exercise one right, then it must mean that we are in the process of giving up all rights.
04-10-10, 06:43 PM
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Is there any reason you'd not answer questions like those given by the OP? I agree that it really isn't the officer's business, but what harm does it really do to you? You're not giving up any right. You still have the right to refuse to answer his questions, you have just chosen not to exercise that right.
Who knows, maybe there is a guy riding a bike around breaking into cars. In which case, you are helping the officer do his job. Even if there hasn't been a crime reported, an officer has a duty to look for things out of the ordinary. I've seen enough hunches come to fruition that I'm personally willing to tolerate a few false positives when they cost me no more than a few minutes of my time. That was the situation here. The OP wasn't even pulled over, but politely approached at a stop sign.
Yes, it does seem that you are an anti-government reactionary. It seems that your sole reason for protesting is that there is a slippery slope connecting all rights. If we choose to not exercise one right, then it must mean that we are in the process of giving up all rights.
Who knows, maybe there is a guy riding a bike around breaking into cars. In which case, you are helping the officer do his job. Even if there hasn't been a crime reported, an officer has a duty to look for things out of the ordinary. I've seen enough hunches come to fruition that I'm personally willing to tolerate a few false positives when they cost me no more than a few minutes of my time. That was the situation here. The OP wasn't even pulled over, but politely approached at a stop sign.
Yes, it does seem that you are an anti-government reactionary. It seems that your sole reason for protesting is that there is a slippery slope connecting all rights. If we choose to not exercise one right, then it must mean that we are in the process of giving up all rights.
A right unexercised is a right lost. Call me anti-government and reactionary and I'll call you complacent and unappreciative of the lives lost to defend those rights you callously dismiss.
04-10-10, 06:44 PM
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Is there any reason you'd not answer questions like those given by the OP? I agree that it really isn't the officer's business, but what harm does it really do to you? You're not giving up any right. You still have the right to refuse to answer his questions, you have just chosen not to exercise that right.
Who knows, maybe there is a guy riding a bike around breaking into cars. In which case, you are helping the officer do his job. Even if there hasn't been a crime reported, an officer has a duty to look for things out of the ordinary. I've seen enough hunches come to fruition that I'm personally willing to tolerate a few false positives when they cost me no more than a few minutes of my time. That was the situation here. The OP wasn't even pulled over, but politely approached at a stop sign.
Yes, it does seem that you are an anti-government reactionary. It seems that your sole reason for protesting is that there is a slippery slope connecting all rights. If we choose to not exercise one right, then it must mean that we are in the process of giving up all rights.
Who knows, maybe there is a guy riding a bike around breaking into cars. In which case, you are helping the officer do his job. Even if there hasn't been a crime reported, an officer has a duty to look for things out of the ordinary. I've seen enough hunches come to fruition that I'm personally willing to tolerate a few false positives when they cost me no more than a few minutes of my time. That was the situation here. The OP wasn't even pulled over, but politely approached at a stop sign.
Yes, it does seem that you are an anti-government reactionary. It seems that your sole reason for protesting is that there is a slippery slope connecting all rights. If we choose to not exercise one right, then it must mean that we are in the process of giving up all rights.
A right unexercised is a right lost. Call me anti-government and reactionary and I'll call you complacent and unappreciative of the lives lost to defend those rights you callously dismiss.
04-10-10, 07:31 PM
#83
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
04-10-10, 07:58 PM
#85
Young Fred
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Callously nothing. I just see no reason to refuse to tell a police officer the answers to some simple questions. If you do, then as you have pointed out, you have a right to go on your merry way. I don't have a problem with it, so I choose to use my right to speak to anyone I wish in order to answer said questions. I feel that it is a reasonable way to sort out people who you think are suspicious into people who are actually doing wrong and people who are on the level. It saddens me that the mere act of cycling is seen as suspicious, but the fact that an officer acted on his suspicion just to be proven incorrect, doesn't bother me in the least.
Do some research into Israeli airport security procedures, and you'll see that they've had a lot more success preventing terrorist attacks than we have. Instead of focusing on the technology involved, as we have, creating long lines through scanners, they focus on the people. They've spent a lot of time and money on research and training in order to do it, but they've been remarkably successful. By recognizing suspicious people, they can pull them aside, and determine if they truly are a possible threat, often by asking simple questions, such as "What is your destination?", and watching reactions. If they conclude the person is a threat, then the scanners and searches get involved. If they conclude the person is not a threat, then they are allowed to continue, having lost only a minute or two of their time. There may be people pulled aside incorrectly sometimes, but then again, they don't let a man get on a plane with a bomb in his pants like the technology approach did. And, they don't have to get up several hours before their flights in order to stand in line.
Do some research into Israeli airport security procedures, and you'll see that they've had a lot more success preventing terrorist attacks than we have. Instead of focusing on the technology involved, as we have, creating long lines through scanners, they focus on the people. They've spent a lot of time and money on research and training in order to do it, but they've been remarkably successful. By recognizing suspicious people, they can pull them aside, and determine if they truly are a possible threat, often by asking simple questions, such as "What is your destination?", and watching reactions. If they conclude the person is a threat, then the scanners and searches get involved. If they conclude the person is not a threat, then they are allowed to continue, having lost only a minute or two of their time. There may be people pulled aside incorrectly sometimes, but then again, they don't let a man get on a plane with a bomb in his pants like the technology approach did. And, they don't have to get up several hours before their flights in order to stand in line.
04-10-10, 08:05 PM
#86
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Callously nothing. I just see no reason to refuse to tell a police officer the answers to some simple questions. If you do, then as you have pointed out, you have a right to go on your merry way. I don't have a problem with it, so I choose to use my right to speak to anyone I wish in order to answer said questions. I feel that it is a reasonable way to sort out people who you think are suspicious into people who are actually doing wrong and people who are on the level. It saddens me that the mere act of cycling is seen as suspicious, but the fact that an officer acted on his suspicion just to be proven incorrect, doesn't bother me in the least.
Do some research into Israeli airport security procedures, and you'll see that they've had a lot more success preventing terrorist attacks than we have. Instead of focusing on the technology involved, as we have, creating long lines through scanners, they focus on the people. They've spent a lot of time and money on research and training in order to do it, but they've been remarkably successful. By recognizing suspicious people, they can pull them aside, and determine if they truly are a possible threat, often by asking simple questions, such as "What is your destination?", and watching reactions. If they conclude the person is a threat, then the scanners and searches get involved. If they conclude the person is not a threat, then they are allowed to continue, having lost only a minute or two of their time. There may be people pulled aside incorrectly sometimes, but then again, they don't let a man get on a plane with a bomb in his pants like the technology approach did. And, they don't have to get up several hours before their flights in order to stand in line.
Do some research into Israeli airport security procedures, and you'll see that they've had a lot more success preventing terrorist attacks than we have. Instead of focusing on the technology involved, as we have, creating long lines through scanners, they focus on the people. They've spent a lot of time and money on research and training in order to do it, but they've been remarkably successful. By recognizing suspicious people, they can pull them aside, and determine if they truly are a possible threat, often by asking simple questions, such as "What is your destination?", and watching reactions. If they conclude the person is a threat, then the scanners and searches get involved. If they conclude the person is not a threat, then they are allowed to continue, having lost only a minute or two of their time. There may be people pulled aside incorrectly sometimes, but then again, they don't let a man get on a plane with a bomb in his pants like the technology approach did. And, they don't have to get up several hours before their flights in order to stand in line.
And I'm wondering if you know about more major terrorist attacks that have hit U.S. soil than I have. Are you seriously suggesting tossing the Constitution to reduce a risk of being killed in a terrorist attack that is already a fraction compared to very serious risks to life that people don't think much of, such as being killed in an automobile collision.
Beside the terrorism red herring, I'm not sure what crimes you think are being prevented by police harassing cyclists. Unless you think another incarceration for minor drug possession is a victory for law and order.
04-10-10, 08:54 PM
#87
Young Fred
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The terrorism wasn't the point. The point was that there may be a useful and productive reason the LEO chose to ask these questions. I'm not going to unquestioningly hand over my bank account or my first born child, but a simple "where are you headed?" is not something to be afraid of, and can sometime do some good.
No one is suggesting that we throw out the Constitution. You seem to have it in your head that simply choosing not to exercise a right is the same as giving it up, and therefore the same as giving up all rights. That is a slippery slope argument, and not the case. I frequently choose not to exercise many of my rights, such as the implied right to paint my self orange and glue feathers in my ears. Yet, I retain that right. If anyone attempts to take that right away from me, I will fight it tooth and nail, even though I never make full use of it, simply on the principle that my rights should extend forever, unless they infringe on somebody else's.
No one is suggesting that we throw out the Constitution. You seem to have it in your head that simply choosing not to exercise a right is the same as giving it up, and therefore the same as giving up all rights. That is a slippery slope argument, and not the case. I frequently choose not to exercise many of my rights, such as the implied right to paint my self orange and glue feathers in my ears. Yet, I retain that right. If anyone attempts to take that right away from me, I will fight it tooth and nail, even though I never make full use of it, simply on the principle that my rights should extend forever, unless they infringe on somebody else's.
04-10-10, 09:30 PM
#88
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The terrorism wasn't the point. The point was that there may be a useful and productive reason the LEO chose to ask these questions. I'm not going to unquestioningly hand over my bank account or my first born child, but a simple "where are you headed?" is not something to be afraid of, and can sometime do some good.
No one is suggesting that we throw out the Constitution. You seem to have it in your head that simply choosing not to exercise a right is the same as giving it up, and therefore the same as giving up all rights. That is a slippery slope argument, and not the case. I frequently choose not to exercise many of my rights, such as the implied right to paint my self orange and glue feathers in my ears. Yet, I retain that right. If anyone attempts to take that right away from me, I will fight it tooth and nail, even though I never make full use of it, simply on the principle that my rights should extend forever, unless they infringe on somebody else's.
No one is suggesting that we throw out the Constitution. You seem to have it in your head that simply choosing not to exercise a right is the same as giving it up, and therefore the same as giving up all rights. That is a slippery slope argument, and not the case. I frequently choose not to exercise many of my rights, such as the implied right to paint my self orange and glue feathers in my ears. Yet, I retain that right. If anyone attempts to take that right away from me, I will fight it tooth and nail, even though I never make full use of it, simply on the principle that my rights should extend forever, unless they infringe on somebody else's.
It's when you refuse to answer questions such as this that you are making a statement that says you are not going to tolerate indiscriminate police actions. If everyone acts like you, what disincentive do they have to this behavior? I suppose I can thank people like you for increasing the chances that I get harassed. You and so many other Americans, sadly.
04-10-10, 09:41 PM
#89
Senior Member
Detaining and questioning are two different things. Officers can pretty much approach any pedestrian and ask them things without reason. That doesn't mean you have to answer them, or that you even have to stop. Pulling someone over in a car, though, requires reasonable suspicion; I would guess the same is true for a moving bike. To detain you and tell you that you're not allowed to leave, an officer then needs probable cause. Of course, all throughout any encounter with a police officer you can expect him to play a game wherein he tries to get you to waive as many rights as possible. Hence the "you don't mind if I look through your bag" line.
EDIT: Oh, and there are very few situations where you're actually required to produce ID. Depending on the state you're in, officers are generally not even allowed to ask for it unless they already have reasonable suspicion -- and you still don't have to provide it. The driver's license situation is different, since you're legally required to have one to drive.
EDIT: Oh, and there are very few situations where you're actually required to produce ID. Depending on the state you're in, officers are generally not even allowed to ask for it unless they already have reasonable suspicion -- and you still don't have to provide it. The driver's license situation is different, since you're legally required to have one to drive.
1- an officer doesn't need probable cause to detain you and tell you you're not allowed to leave, only reasonable suspicion. A detention is an investigative step. Sometimes the investigation will lead to probable cause (arrest) and sometimes not.
2- any officer can ask for an ID. If they ask for it, it may not be required you provide it. Demanding ID would constitute a detention and the officer would have to have reasonable suspicion for that.
So, what is a detention? It's when an officer compels you to remain, when you are not free to go. To detain you the officer must have reasonable suspicion, though they don't have to tell you what that is.
Last edited by hopperja; 04-10-10 at 09:58 PM.
04-10-10, 09:44 PM
#90
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton AB
Posts: 520
Bikes: 2011 Colnago World Cup, 2012 Eddy Merckx AMX-2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I often go running at 4:30 a.m., something I've been doing for 13 years. Last week, I was stopped by two different police cruisers at two different locations in town. It reminded me of Ray Bradbury's short story The Pedestrian.
04-10-10, 09:50 PM
#91
Senior Member
Asserting your rights when you are stopped without cause is another way that we may effect change. Don't answer any of the questions they pose, and refuse to answer anything without counsel present. Since they didn't have cause to stop you in the first place, if they detain you, they'll be fighting an uphill battle.
I know several police officers, and I can tell you police don't stop people for no reason. Maybe the violator doesn't know the reason, but there is a reason. Why? Because the US Constitution says we are guaranteed to be free from unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment). If a police officer detains you (ie, seizes you) without reasonable suspicion, they have violated your Constitutional rights. Do you really think he/she would risk being civilly sued, possibly losing their job, house, bank accounts, etc., just to stop YOU for no reason? Are YOU really that important?
Go ahead, hinder a police officer in an official investigation, and see where that lands you. You might have a new best friend named Butch after that.
04-10-10, 09:54 PM
#92
Senior Member
BTW, are you in the service? I see you're at Wainwright AB. I wonder what your CO would think if you were arrested for running from the police.
04-11-10, 12:48 PM
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Beach, ca
Posts: 952
Bikes: RadRunner Plus, Kona Dew Deluxe
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
the bicyclist was not required to answer them. (except to identify himself) ... If the officer find that you are unreasonably nervous, or antagonistic, he might wonder what you have to hide.
04-11-10, 03:06 PM
#94
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No I created an account to asks some questions I have, but am considering deleting it since this forum has people like you with no respect for police officers who are generally good and trying to help. Police officers aren't out to get you. They ask simple questions. Just answer them truthfully. If you aren't doing anything wrong then why be a jerk to them.
04-11-10, 03:11 PM
#95
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It's not simply someone asking you where you are headed in a 10 second conversation. They have to stop you first, and then approach your bicycle, and then ask you this and other questions. So they are stopping people who are en route somewhere, potentially on an important schedule, and taking time out of their days to interrogate them needlessly. If I am riding my bicycle on the street, and doing nothing wrong, there is not one single good reason for a cop to stop me and ask where I'm going. It's none of his business where I am going, and his unsolicited use of my time is unacceptable.
It's when you refuse to answer questions such as this that you are making a statement that says you are not going to tolerate indiscriminate police actions. If everyone acts like you, what disincentive do they have to this behavior? I suppose I can thank people like you for increasing the chances that I get harassed. You and so many other Americans, sadly.
It's when you refuse to answer questions such as this that you are making a statement that says you are not going to tolerate indiscriminate police actions. If everyone acts like you, what disincentive do they have to this behavior? I suppose I can thank people like you for increasing the chances that I get harassed. You and so many other Americans, sadly.
04-11-10, 04:09 PM
#96
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No I created an account to asks some questions I have, but am considering deleting it since this forum has people like you with no respect for police officers who are generally good and trying to help. Police officers aren't out to get you. They ask simple questions. Just answer them truthfully. If you aren't doing anything wrong then why be a jerk to them.
04-11-10, 04:12 PM
#98
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You just don't like authority do you nanter? What if your mother or girlfriend was ***** and the suspect took off running or on a stolen bike? Wouldn't you want the police to stop them. Police officers have better things to do than waste people's time. I suppose I can thank people like you for getting harassed by every person I pull over. You and your friends, sadly.
No, you can thank people like yourself for getting harassed, because you are willing to accept it without question.
04-11-10, 05:40 PM
#99
Young Fred
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Obviously we've questioned this practice. You can see that because we are able to provide reasons for our beliefs. Obviously we're not mindlessly giving away our rights, because we've recognized that rights are involved.
In my case, I've concluded that the rights involved are in no danger. I'm choosing not to exercise a right, not choosing to give it away permanently.
In my case, I've concluded that the rights involved are in no danger. I'm choosing not to exercise a right, not choosing to give it away permanently.
04-11-10, 05:49 PM
#100
Young Fred
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Also, how do you know what's reasonable suspicion and what's not? If you saw a man carrying a crowbar, late at night, near closed storefronts with large windows, would you be curious what he intended to do with the crowbar? I agree that the OP was doing nothing remotely suspicious. But, being a human, and having the capacity for complex thought, I both feel that the cop did right by acting on his suspicion, and still disapprove of the fact that he found bicycling to be suspicious in the first place.