[macspoofing]

>He didn't refuse the scanner

He wasn't detained because he refused a scanner. You know that.

>when his choice was going to get complicated he could no longer switch back to the scanner.

Well ... yeah. What you refer to as a complication was him testing positive for explosives or poison.

>Why deny him a glass of water?

Is that the problem? He didn't get a glass of water?

[DanBC]

> What you refer to as a complication was him testing positive for explosives or poison.

You might want to look at the Birmingham Six.

They were from Northern Ireland (and thus automatically suspected of terrorism) and living in Birmingham; they were travelling to attend the funeral of a childhood friend (and he was a terrorist); they travelled on the day a bomb went off in Birmingham; and they played a game of cards on the train.

Those cards were coated with nitrocellulose.

The fragments of nitrocellulose on their hands tested positive as nitroglycerine, and that bit of "evidence" was used to convict them of a crime they did not commit and imprison them for very many years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12664938

You shouldn't make assumptions.

[icebraining]

testing positive for explosives or poison.

Testing positive for some chemical that might be used in explosives. Otherwise they wouldn't have asked him for what cleaning supplies he might have used.

[phkahler]

No, he wanted to switch back to the scanner when they escalated the pat down to something not decent to do in public.