Having been on the receiving end of many similar scenarios in the past 13 years, I thought I might add another possible perspective to Katlaughing's third-hand account of the steel marble incident. So the cop is driving along and he gets the call on the radio, "Two-Adam fourteen, (that's him) and Two-Adam twenty-four, (that's his cover car) ...see the man regarding a criminal mischief at the Parkade near the corner of Walk & Don'tWalk. Caller reports juveniles throwing ball bearings from the upper levels of the parking structure. Caller says his car was damaged and a ball bearing nearly hit a pedestrian."

The cop drives toward the parking structure and on the way he hears, "Two-Adam Fourteen, one of the complainants has detained two juveniles near the Subway Sandwich Shop, half a block away from the parking structure. We're getting several calls on this." When the cop gets there he finds two well dressed eleven year old boys and an irate complainant. His cover car drives around the area to see if there are any other likely suspects. All the cover unit finds is damaged cars, maybe a ball bearing or two, and more irate victims.

The primary officer has to talk to the man who detained the kids, and then talk to the kids. Or he might have the cover unit talk to the complainant while he talks to the kids. If it's real busy right now, they'll be the only responding units. If this is a recurring event, there might be a second cover car, or if it isn't busy, another unit might drive by just see what's happening. One of the responding units might volunteer to talk to the second boy out of earshot of the other to see if their stories match.

Apparently all the complainant can tell the officer about why he detained these two kids is the fact that steel marbles were dropping and these two kids were within a half a block at about the same time. Did he hear kids in the upper levels of the parking structure? Did somebody else say there were kids involved? Did they tell somebody the suspects ran this direction?

But let's forget about the complainant. He's not the villain katlaughing and her friend have chosen. The cop, after talking to the complainant, at least has to verify whether or not these kids are the suspects in the criminal mischief. Are these kids nervous because they've never talked to a cop before or because they got caught? Would they be the first clean-cut freckle-faced kids to heave things out of a parking structure? Any cop with more than six months on the job will answer that for you. So should he ask the kid where he lives? I suppose he better, just in case the kid's name has to go on a report. Does the cop know at that point whether he has the suspects or some innocent bystanders? No. So what's the cop looking for? Anything that will tell him whether he has to arrest this kid, or let him go. Is the kid confused about his address, or is he being deceptive because he doesn't want the cop to know where he lives? Should the cop ask him about the discrepancy? I suppose he better. Maybe the kid will admit to something. Maybe the kid will come up with an obvious provable lie.

What does the kid know? If he's been slinging marbles we know what he knows. If he hasn't, at least he knows this citizen and this cop suspect him of something. Whether he did it or not, it's no fun to be suspected of something. Might that shape his perception of how loud the cop is speaking? All he can do is stick to his story, and it probably looks to the boy like the cop doesn't believe him.

By the end of the interview, the cop may or may not believe the boys are the suspects. But the cop knows this -- Whether they did it or not, there isn't enough evidence to charge them. The citizen didn't actually see them throwing anything, and maybe the people in the Subway shop told the back-up officer the boys actually bought a sandwich. So off you go kid, and if it was you, I better not catch you doing it again.

Now the cop has to go gather information on all the damaged cars and angry owners he can find and write a report. Not much chance we'll ever find out who really did toss those marbles. But that's not the end of it. A few days later, the Internal Affairs sergeant calls him into the office and tells him there's been a complaint. He hears the complaint and wonders if it could possibly have been the same incident. This kid's mom says you yelled at him. Says the three of you drove up and "came to a screeching halt." She says you got mad at him because his parents are divorced. And you kept him there for a half-hour and didn't call his parents.

Well sarge, they might have been there a half-hour, probably twenty minutes at least. I kept them there long enough to talk to the guy who stopped them, then talk to Hank and Sally, (the other officers) about where the damaged cars were, and what kind of marbles got thrown. We couldn't find any witnesses, so I just asked these kids what they were up to. They both denied being in the parking structure. One seemed kind of confused about where he lived, and Hank thought he was lying about his address. But nobody yelled at them unless it was to be heard over the traffic noise. And the only way I would have called his parents is if I had developed proof that he actually did something wrong.

Well, says the sergeant, Risk Management will let you know when the lawsuit gets filed.

But that's still not the end of it. Now all the second and third hand accounts will spread throughout the demimondaine and letters will be pouring into the editors mailbox. By the time the anti-cop crowd gets through with this story it will be a racist incident. There are plenty of people out there who are pre-disposed to believe that every cop is Mark Fuhrman and all cops do is "harassment and intimidation" They "can't wait to help" in "exposing the cops in town for what they are."

katlaughing says "the cops have a history of harassing kids they don't like; kids who might seem to be different or belonging to the wrong social set, so what's new, right?" That's not consistent with your description of the "clean-cut looking boys." How did the cops manage to determine that these freckle-faced kids belonged to the wrong social set? Where I come from the cops supposedly have a history of harassing people because they look different. But I can tell you (though you most certainly won't believe me in a million years) it is a false history, written by a small group of sociopaths whose slogan is "What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want them? Now!" I've personally seen the incidents I've responded to and investigated transmogrified by dishonest, hate-filled people who have absolutely no regard for the truth. In most other threads, catlaughing and Alice, you seem to be rational, thoughtful people. But apparently it's O.K. to hate cops, and assume the worst about them without conducting a proper investigation of the facts.

Maybe these cops who stopped your friend's kids were less than deferential, maybe they were the brutish cretins you apparently hope they were. But they were there because they had to be, and it would have been irresponsible of them not to investigate. If you refuse to acknowledge your anti-cop prejudice, you should hope nobody drops a ball-bearing on your head.