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.