Would you mind if we take a couple minutes to diplomatically examine some facts associated with your comments?
In my post #5 I merely asked a few simple questions. I did not in any way state that either the OP's actions, nor the police officer's actions were right or wrong. I only asked what was the relevence of the officer's requests/statements to the situation.
In my post #7 I merely posted a statute and stated a fact. Again, I did not state in any way that either the OP's actions, nor the police officer's actions were right or wrong.
My post #9 was nothing more than a general response to BIGJOHN621's post.
Now, let us contrast my comments to those made by BIGJOHN621, which you have thrown your support behind. Approximately 80% of BIGJOHN621's post #8 is nothing more than mockery of a group of people who choose to exercise their 4th Amendment rights rather than waive them at the first sight of a badge. BIGJOHN621 makes one statement that actually contributes anything factual to the discussion: "Perhaps the permit question was not valid, but that's a training issue", followed by yet another statement of mockery, "not one to start the protest marches on City Hall." I don't see anyone suggesting any marches on City Hall in the previous conversation, do you?
So, I am curious as to why you would claim BIGJOHN621's post as "exactly right" when it contains very little other than mockery borne out of a prejudice against those who advocate exercising rights guaranteed by the Constitution that you once were sworn to support and defend? Is that your definition of diplomacy, to mock those that you don't agree with? Given the CPO anchor in your signature line and the word "pulpit" in your user name, can we assume that you are a retired Chief Petty Officer of the US Navy who is now a minister? May I ask if BIGJOHN621's mocking post, which you declare to support as being "exactly right", exemplifies the values that a Chief Petty Officer or a minister in the service of God should hold?