> Here's a rather strange example (note that in this video an officer does incorrectly assert that my video recording him is against the law - when I calmly correct him and move on, he doesn't say another word about it):

> https://vimeo.com/2230232

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but after watching the video, I wanted to let you know that you definitely do sound like a smart aleck when talking to officers (e.g. "well, we both know that in the real world there is such a thing"... or, "well, fundamentally, I...")... maybe you weren't "disrespectful" in your choice of words, but I can't say the same about your tone and approach. It seems like you're willing to give officers as hard a time as possible just because it's not outright illegal. Don't expect a nice reaction when you do that. They had quite a bit of patience with you and you saturated it.

> They had quite a bit of patience with you and you saturated it.

I can't imagine what you're talking about.

I didn't want to be there in the first place. If they were running out of patience, all they needed to do was end the encounter.

I explained very clearly - left absolutely no doubt - that I was not going to provide identification. I don't know how much more clearly it can be stated. The officer was plainly playing dumb over the matter of what type of identification he expected, and yes, in the real world, we know that he meant a government-issued ID, almost surely a driver's license.

He was plain-out wrong in his approach, and frankly I think mine was pretty spot on.

>> They had quite a bit of patience with you and you saturated it.

> I can't imagine what you're talking about.

You don't need to imagine. I explained it very clearly in the rest of the paragraph: You sounded like a smart aleck lecturing them the entire time. Maybe you didn't read it?

> Maybe you didn't read it?

I see - these are just simple ad hominems. Got it.

So, to be clearer: I meant that I can't imagine what "patience" you are talking about. There was no test or saturation of patience; all these people needed to do was walk away. Simple. They weren't a captive audience, patiently waiting for something to happen. They were doing the wrong thing and obviously uncomfortable with themselves over it.

>> Maybe you didn't read it?

> I see - these are just simple ad hominems. Got it.

Ad hominem? I'm observing that you're still not reading this, because otherwise it means you're totally ignoring it:

>> You sounded like a smart aleck lecturing them the entire time

You just keep bashing their behavior, whereas I'm talking about yours.

Are you denying that you sound like a smart aleck, or what?

> Are you denying that you sound like a smart aleck, or what?

Yes. I'm doing just that.

I was a bit nervous; maybe my conduct wasn't perfect. But I was not a "smart aleck" or in any sense demeaning to these people. I'm proud of how I handled myself.

Have you tried asking a few non-STEM folks (whom you don't already know) what they think of your attitude in the video? To me your attitude was very much the condescending "well, ACTUALLY, you're wrong because..." or "well, TECHNICALLY, I'm right because..." attitude that a lot of us nerds have at some point in our lives (been there). People who are successful learn how to convey the same thing without that attitude. It seems like you're just not realizing it and you're stubbornly refusing to believe others when they tell you you have attitude, despite the fact that it's hard for people to tell when they're acting like jerks. For your own sake, ask a few random people whom you don't know, and no, the people commenting on your video (including me) do not form an unbiased sample.

> "well, ACTUALLY, you're wrong because..." or "well, TECHNICALLY, I'm right because..."

Can you point to a timestamp in the video during which I said either of these things (or adopted the attitude which you say they represent)?

Yes, of course many thousands of people have seen this video. For years, I spoke to people about it all the time. It has been shown at several conferences. I have received feedback of many stripes from many people in many contexts. And, as you can see, there are detractors even on the comments page who make similarly dubious critiques to the one you're making; we've heard it before.

I surmise that, had these police officers happened to have different occupations and they had stopped and detained me as haphazardly and chaotically as they did, your critique might adjust.

I was direct, clear, and professional. The only fly in the ointment came from the apparent unwillingness to hear the simple, direct, clear statement that I was not going to show identification. There is no reason for me to have to say this over and over again to adults whose job it is to listen and perceive the language of civic dialogue. Yet I did, and I did so with precisely the tone and attitude that I think is reasonable in a civilized public square (again, give-or-take my nervousness, which contributed a few awkward laughs and such, but did not veer toward "smart alecky.")

> Can you point to a timestamp in the video during which I said either of these things (or adopted the attitude which you say they represent)?

5:35 is one example:

> You: Just, in theory, there's a "government-issued ID", which you're presuming that I'm carrying, but you don't know whether or not I'm carrying one...

> Officer: I didn't ask for any kind of government-issue ID.

> You: But, of course, in the real world, we both know that there is such a thing that most people carry.

There's so much attitude here, which I'm guessing you don't realize:

1. You start off by lecturing him as if you're teaching him math... like as if he'd said "x^2 = 4 implies x = 2" and now you're saying "In theory, there's an x, which you're presuming is positive. You don't know if x = 2, so you can't just assume that!" That's not the attitude or tone you use on a stranger, let alone on a police officer. You could've much more politely asked, "But officer, what if I wasn't carrying one? Since that's legal, could we just proceed that way?" or something like that. Something that gets the point across without giving him a lecture. (And I'm sure there's better ways to phrase it too; this is just what I thought of on the spot right now.)

2. Despite the above, the officer went along with your attitude and pointed out an obvious mistake in your logic. The logical response at this point would've been to give him the benefit of the doubt and apologize for alleging the wrong thing, or (if heaven forbid you apologize) just ask what other kind of IDs he'd have found acceptable. Who knows, maybe he'd have been fine with a gym ID that only had your name and photo on it, and you might've been fine with that, since you already basically gave them both anyway? Or if nothing else, you'd have at least learned something too, and you'd have also shown him that you're a willing to learn from your mistakes and that you actually respect him. What did you do instead? You just gave him a sassy response. That was totally unnecessary.

And there was at least another obvious instance much later in the video but I don't have the time to listen to it and find it again right now... though the above is clear enough that I shouldn't need to.

Finally, notice the fact that you didn't even wait for me to tell you the timestamp before you wrote your disparaging comments. If you don't even know what I'm talking about, shouldn't you figure that out first before moving on? You're so eager to talk back to people that you do it before you even know what they're talking about. That's not good...

There was no logical flaw or even a logical debate.

The officer was asking for ID and being obtuse about the matter of which form of ID 99.9% show in such a situation.

For all this person knows, I have zero forms of ID.

And it's completely irrelevant - by the time this exchange occurred, he had already - three times - ignored my direct, clear statement that I was not showing ID.

> That's not the attitude or tone you use on a stranger, let alone on a police officer.

These two categories are not mutually exclusive: these people were complete strangers to me, and their occupation has no bearing on the matter. They weren't doing their jobs, which is to enforce the law. They were doing something completely superfluous and unlawful, for 75+ person-minutes of taxpayer time.

I'm not sure if I am going to be able to change your mind. You don't seem open to it.

But let me ask you: if a complete stranger detains and attempts to intimate you in just the manner as occurred to me that night, exactly what tone do you think is appropriate? Do you think it's wrong to point out the absurdity of not only presuming that you have ID but demanding to see it?

I totally disagree. I'm a law and order type of libertarian and I was ready to see jMyles being obnoxious in the video based upon your comment, but he wasn't at all.

That police officer was totally out of line. I'm surprised jMyles was as calm and polite as he was in the video. I would have just kept repeating "Am I being detained?" over and over until they either let me go or until they took me in.

Those officers were being total tools.

The funny thing is, even if I were to agree with you on the police officers, it would still be besides the point. I'm saying jMyles was saturating their patience by being an annoying smart aleck, and you're arguing back by saying the police officers were... tools? As if somehow that contradicts what I said?

jMyles could've been way more respectful in his tone than he was (and no, that need not have included showing his ID). His word choice was fine, yes, but his attitude and tone wasn't. You don't need to lecture police with a smart aleck attitude in order to assert your rights. Could he have been more rude? Of course. Could the officers have treated him more nicely? Sure. Does either of them contradict the fact that was showing an attitude and thereby ticking them off? No.

No, my observation that the officers were tools is vitally dependent upon the fact that jMyles did and said nothing wrong. Nothing at all. The only way that you could think that he was saturating the patience of that officer is if you conceded that said officer has a total right to use his authority to detain jMyles and to demand things from jMyles that he had absolutely no legal right to demand. If you think that officers should be bullies above the law, then sure, the victim of the bully can always be viewed as saturating the bully's patience in some way.

jMyles was not a "smart aleck" in any sense of the phrase that I know. He said nothing flip or rude to the officers. It seems like you're mistaking his attempt to be precise in his language as instead being a "smart aleck". Maybe you expected him to just roll over and show his ID while telling the officer where he was coming from and where he was going to?

In my opinion jMyles went out of his way over and over to express his respect for the officers and sympathy for their position. I thought that his behavior was practically fawning except for the fact that he was sticking to his right to not be forced to provide ID or to divulge what he was doing, where he was coming from, or where he was going to.

> You are basically saying that he is guilty of Contempt of Cop and therefore officers "giving him a hard time" (i.e. illegal harassment, arbitrarily detention etc) is normal and to be expected. You are part of the problem here.

That's not what I was saying... but I'm not going to waste my time responding to strawman arguments. Be my guest and keep exercising your right to be a jerk to everyone around you.

That's amazing. Did you lodge a complaint? They detained you without giving one single reason. They insisted upon ID. The officers lied about the ordinance.

These officers gave the impression that they didn't even halfway understand the law. Complete jerks.

I did not lodge a formal complaint, at the behest of my grandparents, whom I was visiting at the time and who live in the village in question.

Instead, my family had private conversations with the police department, who claimed that the other officers were unhappy with the behavior displayed and vowed that this sort of thing was not to be tolerated again.