Kundale

Let's do play by play and tell me what part you don't agree.

The cops were there because of a complaint about suspicious activity. That is enough to make a "reasonable suspicion" case for a pat down. Yes, this is arguable, but certainly not illegal.

"Under the Terry ruling, a police officer may stop and detain a person based on reasonable suspicion. And, if the police reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous, they may also frisk him or her for weapons."

The cop doesn't need a warrant or an approval to do so, because he felt his life was in an imminent danger. Think about it, a guy randomly walks to a cop and points a gun at the cop. Does the cop need a warrant to shoot him? No, because he thought his life was in imminent danger. Yes, no gun was drawn here - but who is to say that the man didn't have a gun in his pocket? Don't tell me it is not the same thing just because I gave you an extreme example, the motive of the cop (i.e. to defend himself) is still the same and he can use any force to subdue his victim if he feels his life is in danger. 

Reference: ABC article on Excessive force. Nolo article. 

Again, action fully justified? Hell no. But do we have a case? Not as clear cut as many think.