Originally Posted by Braddelauter
I won't make general assumptions, actions and reactions are based on individual circumstances and are based on the foundation of laws and findings by the Supreme Court.
Actions and reactions are not necessarily based on the law. Law enforcement/security types will not always admit to failing to operate in compliance with the applicable laws. That's why some charges are dropped and why some law enforcement/security types are charged and prosecuted.
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
Although, you could say that your smooth travel through everyday life is dictated by the engaging or not engaging with some type of authority figure. This figure could be represented by the grocery store clerk, police officer or moderator on this forum. You can refuse a response to "cash or credit?", and I would imagine that your level of "smooth sailing" has just started to diminish.
... well one can voluntarily disengage from a store clerk, FT forum moderator, etc. without facing possible legal charges/proseuction. The store clerks and FT forum moderators do not have a legal monopoly on the use of violence and of encouraging prosecution.
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
If your definition of harrassment is a police officer following the rules and engaging you in conversation then, yes, you are being harrassed. The law and my definition are a little different.
That's not my definition of harassment.
