zlacker

Fair question. Maybe not directly relevant, but I think the article highlights the challenges for business owners and managers who may find themselves subject to criminal prosecution without ever having had any intent to commit a crime.

>>Alex63+(OP)
That applies to pretty much anyone who resides in the US.

>>davidw+D
Some idiot cops recently threatened to arrest me for touching a bent pole on the street. I was examining it when they rolled up and then threatened to jail me for destruction of public property. It seems that they view abuse as a job perk.

>>zackat+1f
It sounds like they were probably right to make an enquiry as to whether you'd committed wilful damage to public property. Perhaps their tone was out or maybe you were over defensive about a simple enquiry WRT the perpetrator of an apparent crime?

In full consideration, genuine question, would you rather cops simply drove by when witnessing people with damaged public property in hand or would you rather they stopped and made some sort of enquiry?

>>pbhjpb+qj
It's not a genuine question. You've already assumed your obvious conclusion by turning "threatened to arrest" into "make an enquiry". Those are not the same, and anyone with the slightest professionalism can easily do the one without the other.

>>gruseo+Lp
Nope, because they apparently threatened to arrest you as a shortcut to making a more tempered enquiry. If you agree they should have stopped you then it's simply a question of their manner and attitude, if not then it's something else - hence the question.

Did they arrest you, what crime did they claim they were arresting you for? How did you avoid being arrested if they said that is what they were doing? Either they arrested you or didn't, if they didn't they were making an enquiry.

Yes, perhaps they hedged their bets and thought that you might be scared off damaging public property if you had perpetrated the offence by the apparent threat of arrest.

>>pbhjpb+Oy
Uhhh, no.

I was hanging out by a damaged pole when they demanded identification and threatened to arrest me for destruction of public property. They could have

a) used some critical thinking and realized that there was no way I could have damaged said pole

or,

b) been polite, and adopted an "you and us vs. whoever damaged the pole" perspective instead of "us vs. you".

>>zackat+wG
In summary then a policeman was a bit rude to you.

>>pbhjpb+WW
No. The point is that the policemen (plural) actually had real power over me and their threat was actionable. For example, if you're rude to me, I could never ever care, but they actually have guns and the power to jail me, so long as it's "their word vs. mine."