Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to vehicles used by the Washington state patrol for general undercover or confidential investigative purposes. Traffic control vehicles of the Washington state patrol may be exempted from the requirements of subsection (2) of this section at the discretion of the chief of the Washington state patrol.

It sure sounded like he didn't have that exemption...or even have a clue he needed one.
Good point though. Law is hard.

Sorry but this is just being an a**hole. This guy was clearly trying to get a rise from the cop who was pretty patient with this douche.

I disagree completely. He was pretty patient with the cop as well, and calmly informed him he may be arrested if he keeps doing what he's been told to do. He did not get agitated or insulting, how is that 'trying to get a rise from the cop'? He was trying to help the cop stay out of jail, and clearly explained both the law and the reasoning behind it for the cop's benefit.

He repeated the same point repeatedly in the most patronizing way possible.
Was the cop legally in the wrong? Probably. Likely.
Is this an example of a 'cop-gone-bad'? No.
Is this the worst example of abuse that we've seen from a cop? Hardly.
Our 'intrepid' videographer picked the lowest fruit possible in a pretty obvious attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Wanna impress me with your sense of civic responsibility? Next time you see a cop pounding some homeless guy's head into the pavement in a rage, go up to HIM and shove a camera in his face.
This is a little kid trying to play grown-up.

Which "same point" do you mean? That the officer must show ID? That a patch on his arm isn't ID? That his using the car for patrol is against the law? Which point that he had to repeat to the cop before being understood did you find the most patronizing? I found the cop's hesitance to show ID odd and clearly wrong, officers MUST show ID when asked for it...at least in California.
Was he a 'cop gone bad'? NO. Was he a cop breaking the law. Yes. Was the videographer in the right to stop him? Yes.
The videographer obviously had taken this issue on as a pet peeve, as he as every right to do. I would imagine, if he saw a cop beating someone senseless, he would video that as well. This was the wrong he saw, and he did the right thing to solve it.
It sounds like you think cops are above the law, and should never be taken to task for non egregious violations. I think many would disagree. There's a reason the law was created, it's a public safety issue that cops are ignoring, because it's not about THEIR safety. Lovely. That's probably why they wrote it to be enforceable against individual officers criminally, it's the only way to gain 'compliance'.

The videographer voices safety and legal concerns, says something along the lines of 'it doesn't have to be a big deal'. How is this making a mountain out of a molehill?

No cops aren't above the law... that's why I anxiously await the next in this series of videos:
1. Badass citizen confronts cop caught jaywalking.
2. Badass citizen dresses down cop for littering.

I don't disagree with you entirely, but I think he does a good job explaining his philosophy from about 4:45 to the end of the video. Knowing the law and calling out a cop on it when they are not following the law is important and the increase in video taping police helps lower the numbers of abuses.

I also think the cop got a kick out of the guy calling him on this and thought it was funny. He acted as if he didn't know what he was doing was illegal, but I'm not sure that's true.

This post has been removed from the Education channel by channel owner Sagemind. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.