>Then again, did the officer actually tell you/him to stop taking
>pictures? Unless he was physically or verbally abusive, what's the
>problem with showing him what you were doing? You may not like it,
>but after all his job is public safety. Just because WE know we are
>innocent doesn't mean that everybody who sees us shooting pictures
>knows we are innocent.

There is a concept called "probable cause" involved here. Te say that WE know we are innocent but the LEO doesn't, does not mean the LEO gets to stop and search anyone at will. If the photographer MIGHT be a terrorist, so MIGHT the guy passing by who looks at the dam without a camera. Does that give the LEO the right to search the passerby's pockets for a notebook? Of course not.

The other side to this coin is this: is the possible trip to the station, and the possible cost of defending against a bogus arrest worth it to the individual when a simple demonstration of what's being done is so much easier, and so much less costly in time and money? At what point does the cost offset the loss of civil rights? It is simply impractical to go to what would be extreme lengths to resist each and every perceived loss of rights. Sometimes, sadly perhaps, discretion is the better part of valor. As has been said, events such as this are a sign of the times. (Which, of course, doesn't make them right.)

-- The National Institutes of Health reported Monday that giving money to worthy causes stimulates exactly the same area of the brain that sex does. That explains why Bill Clinton does so much charity work. It's another way of cheating on Hillary.