As an older person, if you want to deflect blame, you can blame your lawyer, your LEO cousin, or anyone else you want.

This is the best advice for young people: if you say you're taking your parent's advice, there's a number of advantages:

a) You're not being rude,

b) You're coming across as someone who obeys authority,

c) It's nothing personal,

The goals of policing as a profession has roots in protecting capitalism and those who control capital. It hasn't deviated much from that since it started. And I would describe capitalism as malevolent. So to answer your question: yes.

If police are protecting capital and those who control capital, then they're not uniformly malevolent - coming across as someone who, in another context, might be telling them what to do is likely to get you further with them.

Likewise, if one goal of individual police is to force people to "respect their authority", then you're going to have a better time when you do "respect" that authority, especially when you're at the business end of the stick. Note that I put the quotes there because you don't actually have to respect them in order to make them feel respected.

That's essentially what my argument boils down to - acknowledging their motivations, especially the nuances and not just painting with a broad brush, in a way that you personally can work with will be advantageous.

If a cop treats me courteously and greets me kindly and is respectful in doing their job, I will also greet them kindly and wish them well at the end, but I still still say “respectfully, I will provide identification/documentation and confirm basic details about my identity but am otherwise exercising my right to remain silent and to speak with an attorney”. I will acquiesce only very slightly in that I will sign the ticket they give me instead of getting arrested for refusal to sign.

If he wants to make up a reason to arrest me or potentially even harm me, I will fight it in court.

This is a poor standard, that I doubt you're actually meeting. For example, when you drive through a construction zone, do you flip off every cop you see in order to maximize your right to free expression?

I do actually agree with where you're coming from! It's just that the standard you've claimed leaves much to be desired - it's framed in a closed world zero sum way, which only makes sense if you're only considering the times you have no choice but to interact with cops.

Like for example, I have yelled at a cop doing construction duty (poorly) to "do your job" - traffic was backing up because he was looking the other way and chatting, rather than making sure cars kept moving.

I have laid on the horn at some undercover car setting up to harass some kids in a strip mall parking lot, because it stopped in the entrance to the lot with me half stuck out into the highway. Ended up drawing aggro and getting an earful about how I was disrupting their investigation about drugs blah blah blah. But at the end of the day they want to attack the people they set out to attack, rather than a side quest of hassling me because I called them out.

If a cop passes me on the highway at high speed with no lights (ie not an emergency), often times I will follow them under the rationale of equal protection under the law.

I'm sure I'll get jumped on for explicitly listing these things - people wielding "privilege" or another truncheon-of-the-day, thinking they're "progressive" but really just wanting to enforce the crab bucket. But there was principle in all of them - cops are citizens like everybody else, and should be subject to the same laws and responsibilities as everyone else. And it's all citizens' moral imperative to enforce that.

So back to the topic - the context is being pulled over for something that you are actually "guilty" of, but aren't necessarily going to get a ticket for (cf 3 Felonies a Day). Of all the times I've been pulled over, I'd say about half resulted in just a warning. So it's not that the cop will make up a reason to ticket you, but rather that they already have that reason but perhaps will show you mercy. Once I'm in their direct sights, to me the optimal way to play is whatever is most likely to make them let me go. If that involves playing the part of someone who enjoys licking boots? So be it! Dissent is better expressed in contexts where you aren't already in their sights.

And this is what I take issue with. This leads to the systemic racism we see in policing. There is no reason why a cop should change their mind on whether to ticket you for the probable cause event after they leave their vehicle and approach yours. The decision should already be made and stay that way.

> which only makes sense if you're only considering the times you have no choice but to interact with cops

Yes, I agree, but the other viewpoint I have is that I refuse to interact with cops for any reason other than being forced to. I won't talk to them, I won't call them (unless it's an emergency and someone asks me to on their behalf - and then I don't stick around unless it's crucial), I won't even open my door for them unless they have a warrant. Unless I'm being detained or they have a warrant, I'm ignoring them. If someone burst into my home right now and robbed me, I still would not call the police (although, I live alone, and having kids or a spouse might make me reconsider that since I'm calling on their behalf). I have been held at knife point fixing my car in a parking lot (Seattle) and did not call the cops.

It allows for it, but doesn't inherently lead to it. But I do agree that overbearing laws and relying on leniency makes for a terrible system. I'd be all for changing speed limits to be sensible with how people actually drive [0], and then zero tolerance enforcement (including for cops). But that isn't the world we live in now. And electing into being a martyr isn't going to change that - cops will just sort you personally into the "bad" person bucket and carry on with their prejudices.

> Also the point in the video is that this never works aside from the most absolute mundane of traffic stops, and even then you're putting yourself at risk. Did you watch it?

Not in the last 10 years, and yes I am talking about the most mundane of traffic stops. IMO the main risk comes from people spilling their internal narrative that justifies what they did, thinking that will convince a cop. "I was only speeding because I was late" etc. Don't do that! Or obviously if you have contraband in the car or are under the influence, engage as little as possible! But if that is the case then you shouldn't have been casually violating the law to begin with (and so there should be much less to hope for leniency for)....

> If someone burst into my home right now and robbed me, I still would not call the police

I'd say this is a quite uncommon perspective - I would guess that you have had repeated very poor interactions with the police. And I say this as someone who has been wrongly arrested (aka kidnapped), detained for a night (aka ransomed), and then harassed for a year by the "justice" system. I've still called the cops since then. I'm just not the kind of person who wants to get physically aggressive, which is what would otherwise be required to DIY.

[0] For example on interstates, raise the limit for sustained speed over several miles to 80 mph, with an instantaneous speed limit of 90 or so, for passing.

Also the point in the video is that this never works aside from the most absolute mundane of traffic stops, and even then you're putting yourself at risk. Did you watch it?