newtboy said:

Still more 'quietly filming in public makes him a tool that got what he deserved'. I don't understand how you possibly get there without starting from a place of 'the cop is always right, the citizen always wrong, how can I make that argument?'.

How in the hell is quietly filming "provoking a reaction"? If filming is provocative, why are we trying to get all police to have cameras? So they can provoke citizens? No, so we can have a record of interactions, something they clearly don't want because they know they don't handle interactions properly and can't stand scrutiny.

How is saying clearly and calmly 'I don't waive my 5th amendment right, or any others' escalation?!? Do you believe not capitulating 100% to abusive officers makes it your fault you got beaten, arrested, and put in prison based on their lies?!? I don't understand this mindset in the least. To me, it seems the exact opposite, he was not provocative, the cop was, he did not escalate, the cop did.

I don't see how you see it the exact opposite unless you are simply trying anything to deflect from the clear, already adjudicated, terrible, unwarranted, unprovoked, illegal actions of the officers...both of them.

newtboy said:

I'm still at a complete loss as to why some people seem to think that calmly not submitting to random intrusive 'investigative' questioning makes a person a tool. The cop's not looking to have a nice conversation or make a friend, he's looking for anything he can use against the person he's interrogating...and often, as in this case, when they can't find anything, they'll make something up.
EDIT: often, they'll say you said something you didn't say, or twist what you may have said to come up with a reason to go farther and charge you with something made up. That's why you should say NOTHING, then they have nothing to twist or lie about 'mishearing' or 'misunderstanding'.

As I see it, not answering questions is not disruptive, not dangerous, doesn't cause fear (in normal people), is patriotic, and is also a methodology suggested by nearly EVERY lawyer worth their salt. I can't see the drawback, or how being respectfully reasonable and safe makes someone a tool. I think answering a cop's questions makes a person a tool...one that gives up their hard won right against self incrimination in order to not upset or inconvenience their overzealous interrogator, at the risk of their own freedom, safety, and sometimes life.
Since no one has put forth a reasonable explanation WHY one would act in such a self defeating, disrespectful (to those who died to secure the right to not incriminate yourself or be searched at random), unsafe, victimized way, it seems we should just agree to disagree. I think I put forth a number of logical reasons why I see this behavior (not answering questions) as perfectly reasonable AT ALL TIMES, and fortunately for me the DAs and judges agree with me.

What does it matter how he was acting or even what his motivations were?

He didn't break the law and was unlawfully arrested.

If you feel the need to justify police behaviour because the victim "just shouldn't have done that", you've already long lost the argument, give it up.