Why is this so difficult for the pro-harassment folks to understand? The problem is not with "contact," the problem is with police reaction when that contact is declined. I get police asking me "how are you doing today?" all the time. I respond by telling them I don't as a matter of course engage in conversations with law enforcement officers. Most of the time their friendliness is phony anyway.

The problem starts when many of them refuse to accept that and start hassling you. No one here is complaining about someone saying "hello". Why is that difficult for you to understand?

Again, in my earlier example, I was standing on a corner, minding my own business, drinking a ginger ale from a dark green bottle, when a cop pulls up in his authoritay-mobile and demands to see the label. NO PROBLEM THERE -- a cop can ASK anything he wants. The problem started when I declined to show it to him and gets out and grabs it out of my hand. Again, why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Some on this thread don't like the term "presumption of innocence," so let's use another: "benefit of the doubt." As a citizen standing on the corner, drinking from a dark green bottle, I might or might not be consuming alcohol underage in public. I am the one who is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Unless the police have some reason (i.e., I don't to be able to stay on my feet without the assistance of a lamppost) to believe it is alcohol, they have to assume that it is not. Similarly, if I am walking down the street with a bowling ball bag in my hand, I am entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to whether there is a bowling ball or a decapitated head in the bag, and the cops can't use the excuse that the bag could contain a head to have a look inside. Once again, if I am dripping a trail of blood from the bag as I walk down the street, then it might be reasonable for a cop to have a look inside.