Victim, huh? Get over yourself.

That's called an ad hominem attack with nothing of substance to back it up. Sure, he chose to engage - and he was alone, with no camera, no t-shirt, no sign, and stood politely on line - but he never actually got the chance to ask his question before the police were called, which is a draconian solution. He IS a victim in that regard, and I believe he will have his day in court.

As for you, I believe you will have another donut. You're earning them. You're also making it very, very clear what your real agenda is in this forum. Taste some more of your own medicine, netkopp.

This diarist does not deserve our sympathy.

It's not just up to you.

b/c there's nothing to TR

But I do think it's a great idea that when threats are posted about you on a website and you are going to go to a public event, to have people watching or using my word observing.

If you read everything I post I urged nothing but peace.

Although I'm not even 1/10th what Martin Luther King Jr. was or ever will be, I'm glad he didn't listen to people like you.

You'd have been the first one telling him that he shouldn't be on that bridge.

This diarist does not deserve our sympathy.

He doesn't need our sympathy. He needs our support. He has mine.

which most of us disagree.  I also TR'd you for the ad hominen attack.  It is something I use very rarely.  But in your case, it is justified.

Call the police, some reporter at the NY Times has probably written at least 7 stories invoking the name Bill clinton or george Bush.

Must be a stalker.

at least when shown evidence you follow it.

It'd be nice if the other guy, now being given the proof that I had nothing to do with that guy in the car or the guy filming the video, to do the same.

interestingly, it's the guy in the car who it could be argued tangently who caused a disturbance but you don't hear a peep from Hannity or Levin.

So why are they attacking the guy who didn't create any disturbance whatsoever and not saying a word about the wearechange guy?

or you would have known it wasn't his own video. He posted it after the fact.

which I found out after the fact existed.

Why?

Because sometimes people write diaries claiming to have been somewhere when they were not.

The video, and my presence in it, however brief and tangental, served as confirmation of my presence there.

Simple as that.

Again I had nothing to do with that guy and only learned about that video 2 days later and accidentally.

From the last diary on this:

First, you cannot prove the first element.  They can argue that he merely wanted the cops there "in case" things got out of hand with you and that any other action by the cops was their decision.

Second, you cannot prove that you were confined.  If I ask you to leave the store and you say yes, even if I am a cop, you have not been confined, you have simply been polite.  The cops would have had to explicitly threatened you for your apprehension of confinement to meet a reasonableness test.  Thus you cannot reasonably prove the second element.

Also, since you left on your own accord, you cannot prove the third element.

Finally, though no confinement exists, even if it did it was privileged as the cops were acting of their own accord using their own professional judgment.  Boyce merely got them there.  Once they arrived, they were acting on their own volition and that action is privileged.

Now, you have added a new wrinkle here, that the cops, after you voluntarily went outside, told you you could not go sit at a table.  That is easily dismissed as it is not part of the same transaction which involved the gentleman who called them.  He could have had no knowledge or intent for them to do this, as they were acting of their own accord.  Thus this action of the cops could not be imputed to the caller, as the caller can simply argue that he wanted them their in the event of a disturbance and, once they arrived, they were no longer under his control.  You cannot prove causation or intent.