I am glad you posted. I also watched your show yesterday.
In the first scenario, the citizen acted like a moron. You don't touch your properly holstered gun unless and until you reasonably believe that you are in a self-defense situation. Clearly, he wasn't.
In the second scenario, the citizen handled it perfectly. He should obtain a lawyer and sue the department and the officers. He should cite St. John v. McColley which, all though probably not controlling in that jurisdiction, would be compelling, putting the individual officers at personal financial risk.
In the third scenario, the citizen voluntarily allowed the officers to violate some of his rights in order to prevent them from violating more of his rights. This mind-set is what got us into the situation where officers routinely violate citizens' rights. It is his choice to make, but we all suffer because of folks making choices like his.
I think you should have presented the last two scenarios as reasonable, to be chosen based on one's values. Instead, you presented the third as the best choice.
I, and most posters here, would respectfully disagree. I hope you choose to edit that segment.
I don't want this criticism to detract from you show as a whole. You guys know your stuff and present it interestingly and professionally. Last night I watched your show for the first time. I DVR it now.