1. He talked too much and was annoying. Too much arguing the law with the officers. He should have just told them that he did not consent to any searches or seizures, kept asking if he was free to go, and kept recording. He wasn't ever going to convince the officers, and his behavior is not going to win any folks over to the cause that weren't already on his side. He'll get a lot of rah-rahs from folks who already agree with him, but that does not help.
2. The only law-breaking going on was on the part of the officers.
3. Not necessary. The video speaks for itself.
One more thing, refusing to identify oneself is dangerous. In this case, it was probably OK because the officers specifically stated that he was stopped only because folks called in and reported the man with a gun, which we all know does not constitute RAS.
However, let me run this scenario by you: An officer stops you while you are OCing and clearly not doing anything along with it that would constitute RAS. He asks you to identify yourself as most State laws would allow him to do if he has RAS and stopping you for investigation of the crime for which he has RAS. You do not provide identification because you are sure he does not have that RAS, because you are doing nothing to provide that RAS. He asks again. You ask why your are being detained. You ask what RAS he has. You ask if you are free to go. He answers none of these questions. He just continues to ask for ID. You continue to refuse.
Eventually, he asks you to turn around and put your hands behind your back. He cuffs you and informs you that you are under arrest for obstruction (or whatever the crime is for failing to identify yourself is in your State). You smugly think that you are building up a nice lawsuit.
In court, your lawyer argues that the officer did not have RAS because the mere act of lawful carry cannot, in and of itself, be RAS. The prosecution argues that the officer had RAS because a citizen called in saying that, not only were you carrying, but that you shouted threats and repeatedly handled your firearm (lies, of course). Your lawyer argues that those statements weren't true, so RAS did not exist.
I guarantee that the judge will find that RAS existed, that you were lawfully detained, that you were required to provide, that you failed to do so when required by law, and were therefore guilty of ____________. He will tell you that the officer did not have to articulate his RAS to you, that he only had to be able to articulate his reasonable suspicion.
The point is that, unless the officer is stupid enough to tell you that the only reason he stopped you is that you were legally carrying, you don't know whether he has RAS!!!
Ask if you are free to go. If the officer does not answer, start to leave, but be prepared to stop instantly. If he says yes, leave post haste. If he says no, you are detained, possibly illegally, but you do not know. Follow all the laws as though you were lawfully detained. Fix an illegal detention after the fact.
