Your second case is a red herring.
Turner was not "hiding in the bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas", as you implied. Did you watch the video?
Turner was plainly standing, out in the open, on a public sidewalk. He was clearly unarmed, and posed no threat. All he had was a camera, and all he was doing was filming.
It might be reasonable for the police to come out and try to talk to him. But do you believe that, under these circumstances, it was reasonable to handcuff him, throw him in a police car on a hot day, with the windows rolled up, supposedly based on some bogus law that the cops pulled out of their ass, right that very minute?
It is now beyond dispute that Turner did not violate any law. The appeals court has ruled that. Furthermore, the appeals court has ruled that Turner was arrested. This is not arguable, either. Did you read the court's decision? The court's decision is very reasonable, in that regard: when you get handcuffed, that means you are under arrest. Plain and simple. It is now an established fact, that Turner will no longer need to prove, when he goes back to the trial court (the appeals court reversed most of the trial court's decision, so the whole thing goes back for further legal proceedings). He was arrested by the cops. For standing on a public sidewalk, for filming a police station. Neither will Turner has to prove that he did not break any laws. That was a part of the appellate court's decision too. Of course, one never has to prove that, when being charged with a crime, but it is Turner who's suing the cops, claiming that he did not break any laws, so he had to prove that, and the appellate court now agreed with him.
But, going back to the subject matter at hand. Do you believe that the cops were in the right, arresting a man standing in plain sight, on a public sidewalk, completely unarmed, simply for filming a police station?