Originally Posted by bdschobel
Perhaps one aspect of my logic wasn't clear: I assume that these FAMs -- or any other LEOs, for that matter -- would conclude that arresting somebody for handing out tootsie pops is unreasonable and would let him go. I once had a police officer question me about shoplifting in a mall parking lot, while I was walking toward my parked car. Obviously they were looking for somebody else, as I have not shoplifted in over 40 years (I got caught, incidentally!). I did my usual, "Am I under arrest" routine until he got tired and let me go. He obviously concluded on the basis of this legal back-and-forth that I was not the shoplifter he was looking for.
Similarly, the FAMs in this case would likely have concluded pretty quickly that they were not dealing with a terrorist and sent him on his way. Under these circunmstances, the probability of sitting in jail while an investigation takes place is close to zero -- although not exactly zero, I must agree.
Bruce
as I have not shoplifted in over 40 years (I got caught, incidentally!).
Aha, just as I suspected, career criminal.
Perhaps one aspect of my logic wasn't clear: I assume that these FAMs -- or any other LEOs, for that matter -- would conclude that arresting somebody for handing out tootsie pops is unreasonable and would let him go.
I believe that you are absolutley right, until....the FAMs report back to their supervisor and on up until it reaches D.C. D.C. (as I have gathered from your other posts, you know) is void of common sense. In the case of you the shoplifter (suspected, not actually caught), the police officer can let it go there, and no one will know the difference. Although, here is the frightening part, since D.C. can get spooled up over something like possession/distribution of tootsie pops, they initate an investigation and everything picks up where it left off. For me this would create more of a hardship.