Literally from the article I linked to above:

> A consultant psychiatrist’s note says Bennett had a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder from a serious house fire and is likely to have been unable to comply with police instructions because she was experiencing a severe panic attack.

Regardless of any psychological label, the woman is clearly panicking, and the panic is caused by the police interaction. Being afraid and panicking is not illegal. If the police wanted to do this differently, they could issue a ticket for inspection, throw it in the car, and move on with their day. But instead they chose to get in a power struggle.

Not complying with a lawful order _is_ illegal.

> Not complying with a lawful order _is_ illegal.

I'm fairly sure the concept of a police constable giving a member of the public a "lawful order" doesn't exist in UK law. There are laws that give the police discretion to do things in particular situations, but no blanket ability to issue orders.

And thankfully, illegality is determined by the courts on the basis of evidence and circumstance, not the police.

The point being that the lawful order was unnecessary and they could have deescalated, but chose to force her to comply.

Over window tinting.

The point isn't that I know she's having a panic attack. I'm not trying to force that to be the circumstance.

But she could very well be having a legitimate physiological response (of which a panic attack could be one)... in which case she's not "being an idiot". As long as it was a good faith emotional response, your conclusions still aren't warranted.