.... it is all about the laws and being shoved around by the police and others.....
S.D.: Two Things:
1) Some laws are written vaguely, so-as-to apply to a myriad of things that might arise in the field. Eg.: laws that forbid "annoyances". Or laws against "vagrancy". Or "blocking sidewalks", etc...... And while it MIGHT seem arbitrary and capricious for some cop to "decide" you're "annoying" someone else, or "vagrant and blocking sidewalks" (when you were only sitting down to tie your shoelaces), yet ... : It has to be that way. Because it's impossible to write laws for every single thing that might happen in-the-field.
Thus for example we turf hunters sometimes get accused of the vague law about "altering" or "defacing". And we can argue semantics and dispute them if we want (saying we'll leave no trace, hence we aren't breaking that law). But the bottom line is, that as unfair as it might seem, a cop DOES have the leeway to interpret them . Because if cops DIDN'T have the ability to employ these "vague" laws to apply to various situations, then society would fall apart. People would FOREVER be arguing semantics with cops all the time.
So if you are truly "annoying" someone in public (following them around shouting obscenities, or whatever), you could merely argue with cops that A) your words weren't *technically* cussing, and B) you were keeping XX ft. distance from the person, etc.....
Thus while it seems arbitrary and unfair, yet there HAS to be a certain amount of authority/power vested in a cop to apply laws, LEST HE COULD NEVER GET his job done.
Yes I realize you're going to say that *your* particular situation was "beyond the pale" and unreasonable. But just bear in mind, that So-Too does everyone , who is told to leave an area, etc.... will always feel singled out, etc.....
2) No one here (Clad 2 meet you, me, etc...) is necessarily saying "you were wrong". So please don't interpret these things that way. Perhaps you will prevail legally, and yes, perhaps your permission will be deemed to have allowed you there. Hence the cop *should* have let you continue. THAT part might not be in dispute. So don't think that anyone here is saying you were wrong about that part.
It's only the part about giving a bit more lip-service (yes, even when you're "in the right") to a cop .
Yes I realize there comes a point when a man is NOT under an obligation to "bend over and spread his cheeks" at the arbitrary demands of a cop. Thus yes, we're not under an obligation to "follow every *single* command". And yes, sometimes lip service isn't needed for extremely capricious illegal demands. But we're just saying that in this particular case, putting yourself in that cop's shoes, he ..... at the time .... perhaps didn't know of your permission. Hence the "lip service" (a smile, exit, explain your permission, etc...).
And let's just assume for the moment that this didn't work, and the cop continued to berate you, not accept your permission, etc..... You can still "have your justice" (as unpleasant at the wait may be) at a later time, by complaining to his superiors. As I gave an example of in post # 23.
