I read it that, by quoting his own internal chatter (We All bring every past event, association to - any next event.. D'Oh!) -- this guy talked himself FROM..

"Clearly these guys were behaving suspiciously and while the backup-light wasn't a crime - I was justified in bringing it to their attention. Their fleeing my legitimate stop: was their first illegal action.. (not the bad light)"

TO:
All the above.

Foot-in-mouth disease IMhO. Not 'racial profiling' by any stretch - simply employment of one's own life experience, in a field which is always *about* human psychology (or you'd die soon). Yes too, the 'not' is aided by the fact of his er partner preferences. Data always helps when yer lookin fer loopholes or just holes.


My Solomonic Decision\ufffd

hasty, popular but trite opinion :[

And probably, cop or non-cop - one of the prime motivating internal attitudes which underlie the usual straw-homo debates employing liberal/conservative, believer/not-so-believer - merely putative "attitudes" about

whose ox? was gored.

Surely this concept also goes to the heart of 'intentionality' (from other threads we might recall). Not impossible to elicit from a one, but.. surely ripe for obfuscation - especially when defending er rationalizing one's actions taken.. afterwards.

(I assert that we always act on the emotional content - this is the fastest! of our responses (check it out) - later.. focus upon the intellectual 'logical' component of the entire matter. Few instant-events allow the luxury of the latter *while* in-progress)

I agree that by this crucial point: the 'benefit of doubt' accrues to the kids above since, "acting suspiciously" is simply YAN variation of the loitering statutes -- now universally decommissioned, I believe (?)

Of course, in actual life situations - even this litmus cannot address the complexity of circumstances. We still have to rely upon a certain level of expected candor in testimony - as in the intentions ? v.large Question.

Ergo: we'll continue to employ the also imperfect processes of judges, lawyers and witnesses (seemingly least reliable of all!) - indefinitely. Simply because we Know from all experience since birth:

Homo-sap will lie *especially to salvage ego*, then $ and a litany of other 'reasons'.

There is no escape from what, so often 'we are'.

{sigh}


Ashton
guilty of taking the snap-judgment, just like the cop

PS - we still don't know enough of the above events to fairly 'judge' the subtleties, I trust is obvious: since this 'case' seems to be aborted by the actions of the board sans the court process. So we won't ever have an 'examined judgment' of above reported events.