No, and I never said they arrested him. An arrest is different from a detention.
I don’t think there’s any question that there was no probable cause here.
The OP asked specific questions. Can you clarify precisely what you’d like the OP to clarify?
It’s suspicious to walk in the rain? I walk in the rain all the time. I wouldn’t like it at all if the police pulled up next to me for this and asked me what I’m doing and after giving them a reasonable answer, asked me my name. Unless they’re looking for someone who recently committed a crime and have reason to believe I may be him, it’s harassment. What crime am I more likely to commit in the rain than on a dry night and if there is anything more likely, without good reason that I am a threat to commit that crime, I shouldn’t be asked by police what my name is and prove I am who I say I am, even if I do claim to be a rock star.
Why not? Why is it relevant that a person that walks in the rain didn’t do so in a neighborhood where the residents are familiar with him? Okay, so the police play it safe by having a nearby cruiser ride by. There’s the wanderer walking down the street doing nothing wrong? How about driving away since there’s nothing else going on but a man walking in the rain? Okay, they play it more safe and ask him what he’s doing. He answers with a reasonable answer. Everything else now starting with asking him for his name and ID is unreasonable and harassment.
I didn’t see any outrage either.
They didn’t even detain him. They offered him a ride. He took it. Maybe, had he not had the backup when he got off the bus, they would have detained him. Maybe, had he said no to the ride, they’d have detained him.
That doesn’t sound like an offer for a free ride from a police officer to me. That sounds like his identity needs to be verified at another location and “why don’t you get in the car” is a polite way of saying “get in the car.”
An elderly man dressed shabbily, walking in the rain, claiming to be Bob Dylan looking for a house to buy sounds a little weird. Not criminally weird, mind you, but more of a delusional old man kind of weird. Yes, the police occasionally do have to deal with older people are delusional or suffering from dementia.
Odesio
And saying “I don’t want to get in the car” is a polite way of saying “no”.
The police are called and they’re told a poorly dressed old man is wandering around the neighborhood, including walking onto people’s front yards, in the rain. They respond and the guy claims he’s Bob Dylan. Face facts: the odds are 6000000000:1 that he’s not Bob Dylan. The reasonable assumption is that you’re dealing with somebody who’s delusional.
He wasn’t arrested. He wasn’t detained. The officer asked him if she could give him a ride somewhere. She was probably expecting she would end up turning him over to local mental health services.
Agree.
from what i’ve read so far it seems someone did not do the very obvious.
mr dylan has a very distinctive voice. all they had to do was ask him to sing a few lines of one of his songs.
Assaulting a police officer is a serious offense.
And telling the police “no” when they tell you to get in their car isn’t very wise. What’s the point of bringing this up?
Close. He walked on one front lawn. And so what? He responded that he was looking at a house for sale. He should have been left alone after this.
After they ask him what his name is.
That’s not a fact and it’s irrelevant. Claiming to be someone famous is grounds for police to have you produce ID at another location? Odds are he doesn’t have any particular name. I’d bet every police officer in Long Branch was aware Bob Dylan’s tour buses along with Bob Dylan were in their town. An old man responding in to Long Branch police officers that he’s Bob Dylan just had the odds go up that he’s actually Bob Dylan. But this is also irrelevant. He shouldn’t be asked who he is and he shouldn’t have to prove he is who he says he is when he did nothing wrong.
No, it’s not. If he’s a delusional man that is a danger to himself or someone else, there would be more signs that would be easily ascertained without taking him for a ride to produce identification.
I thought “I don’t want to get in the car” was a polite way of saying “Taser me until the batteries run flat.”
“Produce ID or we’ll detain you” and “Get in the car or we’ll detain you” both sound an awful lot like “We’re detaining you”.
“You have to come with us and do what we say, or else we’ll make you come with us and do what we say.” 
Which is a polite way for a cop who tasers an innocent person to say “and sue my police department and make sure I get suspended without pay.” We can play this game for days…
First of all, he wasn’t detained. One with the testicular fortitude to comment on what the police should or should not be doing ought to be familiar with basic concepts such detention and reasonable suspicion, never mind the thick blue line between interrogative versus investigative questioning. Apparently you are not familiar with these concepts. This is especially clear when we look at your supposition that lying to the police about one’s identity should be construed as something nobody should care about.
I thought this was the crux of the OP:
Basically, some of us took it for granted that we have a right to stand/walk in the public space without turning over our papers to a questioning officer. That the officer was responding to a citizen’s complaint or call is irrelevant (i.e., there were no accusations of disturbing the peace).
If I am walking alone, with no identification, rain or not, in my own neighborhood or not, am I legally bound to provide a questioning officer with suitable identification and backstory to justify my existence? Pretend there’s no racism involved and everyone is polite.
If I (politely) refuse to answer the policeman’s questions about what I am doing and (politely) decline his offer to go with him, have I violated a law? Should everyone who is out of doors and without identification be compelled to provide such or face arrest? Given that the courts have outlined a host of various types of stops and outlined various limits to the police power to detain and/or search, should that be scrapped for a much simpler standard of upon demand, present ID to the questioning officer(s) satisfaction, until such time you are in custodial care? Would the officer need any particular level of cause, or are simple hunches allowed?
Is this a right/left issue? Seems like suggesting that Dylan (or anyone else in a vaguely similar situation) should have provided ID or other credible reason for his being there would be in favour of a National Identification System, with mandatory carrying and presentation of said ID at the request of any law enforcement officer.
I’m not a lawyer or a cop, so I’m not going to weigh in on what is legal or what is allowed. But I have a moral standard, and saying “come with us or else” to anyone is a dick move, unless they’re posing a danger to someone.
It didn’t involve a national police force nor did it require a national identification. He could have produced pretty much anything with his name and address on it as a basis of conversation.
Anyone with a lick of sense would have found it odd that a famous musician was out walking in the rain looking at houses and coudn’t produce any identification. It is far more likely that it wasn’t Bob Dylan which means it was prudent for the police to establish that he wasn’t out looking for Girl Scouts.
Yeah, Rythmdvl, count me in there.
Sure, it’s odd. That doesn’t mean it’s any of their damn business, though.
“It IS suspicious to be out wandering in the rain”
I just can’t wrap my head around someone actually believing this.
It may be unusual (for some) or possibly unorthodox (depending on your point of view) but suspicious???
I am not planning any vigils to protest Dylan’s treatment in New Jersey, but walking in the rain should NOT cause for being stopped and questioned by the police in the United States of America. (for a musical legend or a homeless drifter)