Sometimes I just don't understand you guys! There was MORE positive in this outcome/situation and yet we're here arguing that some how I got violated.
IMHO you're putting things in too stark of terms.
NO, you weren't violated, but also NO, it wasn't a wholly consensual conversation.
A cop asked you questions, which you answered, and neither side resorted to "force" (verbal or physical) - those things are good.
On the other hand, did you willingly answer his questions because that's just how you are, or because you felt that if you didn't, the tenor of the encounter would change toward the negative?
That is what people are being negative about.
"Violated" is a bit strong, but wouldn't you go so far, in the absence of your willingness to answer questions, to call it a "forced" consensual conversation?
You handled yourself in a way that various jerks wouldn't want to show on YouTube, but if your encounters with LEOs continue, there may come a time that you will tire of explaining yourself or justifying your OC. On the other hand, that may not happen.
I think most people here want to have a good relationship with LE, but they also feel that the exercise of rights ought not have to be explained or justified - partially because it creates an expectation that OCers *must* do so. Some make that point by being jerks, some are polite but firm, and others, like you did, politely answer all questions.
You spoke of law enforcement being accustomed to seeing people OC, but won't you acknowledge that if everyone was continually accommodating by answering any and all questions that LE would come to expect such behavior? Would you view that as okay or not?
Will you at least acknowledge that there is a middle ground (whether it's the way you would act or not) between acting as you did, and acting like a "It's my right!!" or statute-citing jerk? I think that middle ground is where many people here like to be, some or all of the time.
