BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

iBoaterer[_2_]

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:42:11 -0700, thumper wrote:

On 4/13/2012 10:12 AM, wrote:

The police DISPATCHER (not a real officer) just said "we don't NEED
you to do that" which only says he was not being told he was being
asked to follow Martin, not that he couldn't.

I think this is biased interpretation. Granted the choice of words was
unfortunate but the intended meaning of the dispatcher was quite clear.
Don't follow.

You have to take words at what they are, not what they might be.

If they tell you that you don't "need" to eat all your peas, it
doesn't mean you can't.
That really sounds more like a liability issue for the police. If they
imply that he should follow someone and they get hurt, the police
would be liable.
I have been to a number of NW meetings with the cops and they tell us
it sure would be helpful if we can watch the person until they get
there but be careful. In fact that is really the only way they
actually catch anyone.
If they see the guy a block away, he can say "it wasn't me".
Theoretically they need "reasonable suspicion" even to do a "Terry
stop".

You are getting as unhinged about this as Scotty!