3 ms·

So here we get to the crux of the issue – the author very clearly didn't see it as a fine interaction. You see it as a fine interaction. That means one of two

So here we get to the crux of the issue – the author very clearly didn't see it as a fine interaction. You see it as a fine interaction. That means one of two things – 1)The Author is completely off base or 2)You don't understand why it's legitimate for the author to feel that it wasn't an okay interaction. (Or, I guess, 3 - Some middle ground between the two) It's easy to say the other side is just wrong when you don't agree with it. It's more of a challenge to say they're not completely off base and that we don't understand their experience, and then try to find understanding, try to make sense of what might not make sense at first. The thing is, if you take the first path, it doesn't do anything constructive. You've got your side, they've got theirs and the conflict will go on. If, instead, you try to understand where they're coming from, it might make it easier to bridge gaps and find common ground. Worst case, you decide you were right to begin with... but, in my experience, there's often something to be learned from every person... unless you out and out think they're lying.

beat 11y ago
There are at least a couple of comments in this thread accusing the author of lying.
res0nat0r 11y ago
I understand where he is coming from and why he should feel afraid, but luckily in this case nothing from the cops was inappropriate. To the posters here suggesting they just take his address down (which he said was incorrect anyway) and let him go and sort out the details later isn't a realistic or correct solution.
- incongruity 11y ago
  Why isn't that a realistic or correct solution? If you're going to make that assertion, you need to back it up with an argument, otherwise you're simply offering an opinion. While that's all well and good, it's not really informative or a productive contribution to this discussion. If the author could provide reasonable proof of who he was, what he was doing and his standing in the community, then there should be nothing wrong with letting him go, pending further investigation. Take his picture, if you like, but don't detain him any longer than absolutely necessary unless there's overwhelming probable cause to hold him. A vague description is hardly that. Yes, I'm biased, I believe that having gainful employment in any of a number of fields does make one a tiny bit less suspicious and much more easily found if the investigation goes further.
  - res0nat0r 11y ago
    > If the author could provide reasonable proof of who he was, what he was doing and his standing in the community, then there should be nothing wrong with letting him go, pending further investigation. Take his picture, if you like, but don't detain him any longer than absolutely necessary unless there's overwhelming probable cause to hold him. A vague description is hardly that. The argument is that he simply could have easily lied to them and they have no way to verify that. When there is a crime happening and the cops respond the smartest and best course of action is to look for the suspect(s) who are possibly nearby. This guy could have possibly been one of them. Thus they asked for his info, validated who he was, crossed him off of the list and moved on. There wasn't any probable cause to hold him, which they didn't do. I don't see how it get's much more cut and dry than that.

beat 11y ago

There are at least a couple of comments in this thread accusing the author of lying.

res0nat0r 11y ago

I understand where he is coming from and why he should feel afraid, but luckily in this case nothing from the cops was inappropriate. To the posters here suggesting they just take his address down (which he said was incorrect anyway) and let him go and sort out the details later isn't a realistic or correct solution.

incongruity 11y ago
Why isn't that a realistic or correct solution? If you're going to make that assertion, you need to back it up with an argument, otherwise you're simply offering an opinion. While that's all well and good, it's not really informative or a productive contribution to this discussion. If the author could provide reasonable proof of who he was, what he was doing and his standing in the community, then there should be nothing wrong with letting him go, pending further investigation. Take his picture, if you like, but don't detain him any longer than absolutely necessary unless there's overwhelming probable cause to hold him. A vague description is hardly that. Yes, I'm biased, I believe that having gainful employment in any of a number of fields does make one a tiny bit less suspicious and much more easily found if the investigation goes further.
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  > If the author could provide reasonable proof of who he was, what he was doing and his standing in the community, then there should be nothing wrong with letting him go, pending further investigation. Take his picture, if you like, but don't detain him any longer than absolutely necessary unless there's overwhelming probable cause to hold him. A vague description is hardly that. The argument is that he simply could have easily lied to them and they have no way to verify that. When there is a crime happening and the cops respond the smartest and best course of action is to look for the suspect(s) who are possibly nearby. This guy could have possibly been one of them. Thus they asked for his info, validated who he was, crossed him off of the list and moved on. There wasn't any probable cause to hold him, which they didn't do. I don't see how it get's much more cut and dry than that.