[lukan]

"My point is that in such situations, the information has a chance to de-escalate, be neutral, or escalate the situation."

Yes, because in intense situations, it matters often much more how you say something, than what exactly you are saying.

Remember that from the point of view of the cops, you might draw a gun at any moment, if they misjudged you. They need to feel they are in control of the situation.

So giving a legal correct counter, but in a snarky or aggressive voice, might not help.

But calmly reminding them of certain laws and maybe even asking them, if they are sure that they could justify their actions in a court, might work better than resisting and demanding things of armed police officers.

[withinboredom]

> But calmly reminding them of certain laws and maybe even asking them, if they are sure that they could justify their actions in a court

This will mostly just come across as patronizing and more likely to 'deal with you in court' while your smarmy ass sits somewhere.

Some real advice: don't tell a cop how to do their job. Answer the damn questions and be assertively "no" if they ask you to consent to anything. That's it. If they go away, great. If they make your life hell. That sucks, but don't do anything to make it worse, like patronizing them. Suck it up and deal with it later.

[lukan]

Well, I do have managed quite well with different police so far, even though not with US police. But I am sure they react to body language and sound as well. And yes, one can also articulate that sentence less escalating, my point was mainly that the way someone is said matters a lot more.

[lukan]

Correction: (..the way something is said)

[godelski]

  > Remember that from the point of view of the citizen, the cop might draw a gun at any moment, if they misjudged you. They need to feel they are in control of the situation.

FTFY

The point I'm making with the edit is that the cop is a trained professional while the citizen is some random bloke.

Not that while the citizen might have a weapon, the situation is unambiguous for the officer. They have several...

So both people are in the same situation and seeking the same thing (at this basic level), right? The question is who has the higher obligation, who has to "be the bigger man?"

In all other professions, it is generally without dispute that the greater burden falls upon the professional. The one with training. The one with authority! By nature of the interaction the cop has more control than a citizen. Power granted by law, a position of authority, and an unambiguous armament.

I need you to think carefully about the consequences of your argument. How they extend past this specific example we have in our heads. You'll need to clarify to what extent this is okay.

Authority needs not just be accountable, but accountable in proportion to the power we grant them. Do I need to quote Uncle Ben‽‽‽ Without a doubt, officers have substantially more power than the average citizen, thus I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest they should be held to a higher degree of accountability. I maintain this position regardless of the type of authority. In many cases, ignorance is not an excuse. With professionals, ignorance may not just not be an excuse, but an active act of malice (a doctor who does not continue their education has actively chosen inaction. Their ignorance will not hold up in a court of law. In our case, I see no reason ignorance is different from malice when the requisite knowledge is commonly taught in middle and high school. I am willing to give a pass for complex issues, but not stop and frisk)