Getting back to the original post, it appears to me that this kid wasn't disrespectful, or "snotty", or anything of the sort. If he was breaking the law, it isn't apparent how. He did, however, cross a line that has brought out many of the contradictions in peoples' attitudes about and perceptions of police officers and their roles, and in my view that makes this a great learning tool.
One contradiction is the notion that "police officers are our friends". Many if not most parents, at some point in a kid's life, will make this statement in the context of a young and innocent child's potential interaction with/need for a cop, because at that particular age they cannot conceive of an instance where that child's freedom or welfare could be jeopardized by such a meeting. However, anyone that's ever had a "contact" meeting with a cop sooner or later realizes instinctively, whether they can articulate it or not, that the cop is actively trying to frame the interaction in a "parent-child" context in which the cop drives the contact as the "parent" role. This is the mindset that allows them to make what was earlier termed "small talk", but in fact is the opening gambit in what is absolutely a line of interrogation. The most gifted cops in this area end up making fine interrogators -- you can watch shows like "The First 48" to get a great tutorial on it. Anyone that has ever fallen into the "child" end of this sort of conversation knows a few things immediately: first, they are being consciously manipulated. Second, they don't like it very much, because it's a stressful feeling, but they don't want to be perceived as rude by resisting it. And third, they almost invariably believe that, due to the cop's position and authority, they are not at liberty to resist being manipulated.
What the kid in this video did was circumvent the cop's application of this ploy by stating, as politely and directly as he could without actually falling into it, that he didn't want to participate in such a conversation. You have to understand, cops don't like surprises. They also come to believe (or follow this twisted logic in order to keep the charade afloat) that for any subject, especially a teenager, to resist this maneuver is to be disrespectful and uncooperative. Quite simply put, the cat zigged, the kid zagged, and the cat got p*ssed off at getting caught flat-footed. As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the interaction with the entire LE team was an offshoot of this perception, handed down via the words, tone, and body language of the cop to his colleagues. I thought the kid handled it well, actually. He wasn't disrespectful, and he didn't refuse to cooperate (stopped when commanded, left the vehicle when commanded, etc). He just wasn't willing to "play the game" that would put any additional leverage, whether real or perceived, in the cop's hands to be used against himself.
It's important to note that this has nothing to do with the kid's right to avoid self-incrimination. Unless you can point to some illegal activity on his part, it's nothing more than an attractive canard relative to this particular interaction. So few people understand this distinction and realize that they don't have to let the interaction move to this "parent-child" mindset that the cops assume anyone who knows about it *and* tries to use it must be hiding criminal activity and attempting to thwart their efforts to discover it. This is especially true of less-experienced officers. While not all tactical/patrol officers are inexperienced, that's where you're most likely to find them because that's where police officers start their careers as sworn officers, with few exceptions.
The kid provided us with a valuable lesson, if you ask me. Unfortunately for him, it's too easy for the cops to decide he's a "snotty kid" and then start in on him with the fallacious logical arguments like "if you're not hiding something, why not cooperate?", and the veiled threats of arrest, etc. Were I to do it at my age, I could theoretically probably keep the cop from going there by being deferential but firm, or maybe by applying humor to the situation (which isn't usually a good idea -- I know I wouldn't try it). Having been on both sides of that conversation, I have to marvel at how breathtakingly simple a device it is, and how profound its effect is on people.
Anyway, just my two cents.
