Commercial use is not simply a matter of money - it generally involves use of a photo in advertising to promote a product. A photographer can earn money from a photograph without it being considered a commercial use of the image. For example, you can sell the use of the photo to a newspaper for their use in an article (that would be an editorial use) or you could sell copies of the photo as art or publish the photo as part of a coffee table book - such usage would fall under the heading of artistic use not commercial. So, the mere fact that the photographer may earn some money from the image does not necessarily make it a commercial use.

Right to photograph a child. I was at a car show in a main street in a town and I photograph a child standing in the street and the mother came up to me and asked me to delete the picture of her child. I than proceeded to explain to her that it was a public place and I was allowed to take all the photos I wanted as long as I didn't use then for a monetary gain.
I might enter her son's picture in a photo club's private competition if it turned out to be good enough in which the reward is a ribbon if it wins. So I was not willing to delete it. She than called over the police who kept me retained for about an hour to see what was to come of this matter and they finally said I had two alternatives. Delete it or give them the camera or be arrested. I really thought I was within the law and I didn't have to delete it but I didn't have much choice here since I didn't want to be arrested and they said my picture would be in the paper and all the pictures I had taken for the day at the car show like 350 including maybe 30 other children would be deleted. What are your thoughts on this? What is the law here? Thanks.

NEVER assume a cop knows what they are talking about when they tell you something is illegal. Unless it is something they deal with every day, they will simply tell you it is illegal because they don't want to be bothered finding out what the law actually is. Once they've taken this position, there is no way they are going to back down unless you get a higher authority involved -- that is simply the personality of the majority of people who choose to become cops. They will also try to bully you into believing that they can confiscate and destroy things when there are very few laws that allow this.

This is relevant because if you're going to stand up for your rights in any situation (not just photography), you need to be prepared to deal with the probable consequences which are almost guaranteed to include an enormous expenditure of time on your part.

I'm not saying not to do it, just choose your battles. To me, this situation didn't sound like a battle worth fighting. Apparently it was for the original poster.

Many people also seem to be missing the important distinction between what is covered by criminal law (could get you arrested) and what is covered by civil law (could get you sued). If it is a civil issue, the only thing at stake is money, not your freedom.

Because it is how history is recorded and Art is made. Police Dash Cams and Body Cams. News photographers photographing a house fire or picketers at a rally and on and on. Today if the test used is if it makes someone uncomfortable or not no pictures would ever be taken. Here is the complete opposite but entirely valid statement to yours. I wonder why anyone would go out in public if they feel uncomfortable having their picture taken? Does that make sense to you? Because actually that statement is backed up by the law not sentiment like yours is. I understand what you are saying and I am not saying I disagree or agree with you what I am saying is it is just not that simple. Further no one has the right to judge the OP what he did was well within his legal rights. If you or anyone else chooses not to take that same shot that is fine too but no one should judge him, his motives, or his ethics. The OP asked a question about his legal rights in this situation not whether he had the moral or ethical right to do it.

Bert P. Krages II Attorney at Law, the author and alleged expert, has not cited a single statute or example of case law to support his proclamations, nor is there mention of such in any other web article or personal opinion offered so far in this thread.

These are all delusions of adequacy!

Bert P. Krages II Attorney at Law does, however, provide a disclaimer and his contact information at the end of his narration. It wouldn't be all that great of a leap for someone to construe a bit of ambulance chasing going on.

Ok that is a completely different issue.
In the case where a pervert takes the head of one child and photoshops it onto the body of another for a pornographic purpose to be displayed on an inappropriate site. Or let's say the pervert steals a photograph online of a child even fully clothed and puts it on a inappropriate site. The original photographer still did nothing wrong and is not liable the pervert is. If you own an gun that is legally registered and is properly stored. Someone breaks into your home steals it and commits a crime with it you are not liable so I am not really sure what your statement has to do with the Op's question.