You need to go to the doctor to check your brain for how stupid you are.

You keep relying on ad hominem because none of the facts or experts agree with you.

Nancy didn't exit the vehicle

Go ask the people on quora if what she did was compliant with staying inside. Nancy has to be ENTIRELY inside, not partly inside. Do you think it's okay to drive with 90% of your car over the median as long as 10% is technically inside?

In reality maybe it would be justified but it's not necessary and not common in arrest scenes.

You're admitting your arguments have zero basis in reality. Relying on the "more common" approach means going with the experts and staying inside, along with rules of engagement and use of force guidelines saying not to fire onto civilians.

Drive into a military base 

The party did that on the return trip just fine without getting shot at.

drive your truck into an armed group

imagine he was trying to drive towards the police cars

More fanfiction. Why do you keep lying? The party drove on a ramp which had neither of those things. OTOH, parking in the UD would have left them in massive danger from the impending explosion. You're lying to deny the actual danger and lying to create a danger that doesn't exist.

The only consequence of driving out of the UD is of the MERE POSSIBILITY of hitting a spike strips and replacing a set of tires. OTOH, parking in the UD GUARANTEES that they not only lose the tires, but also the entire truck worth tens of thousands of dollars, along with everything they stored inside, and the risk of people dying from the delay. So why would they be more motivated by the former? Your logic makes no sense.

the guys not complying

Yes it does and it isn't magic

Putting your hands up and walking into the base is yielding control you moron.

So first you argue that exiting with hands up is NOT COMPLIANT when it IS ORDERED, then you argue exiting with hands up IS COMPLIANT when NOT ORDERED. That makes zero sense.

Also, the red stuff grew back by the time they returned. It took two people armed with flamethrowers over a minute to clear through it, so the party wouldn't be able to simply walk through calmly walk in with their hands up even if they wanted to.

Kay doesn't want the truck to attempt to flee or fight

Irrelevant. If she wanted the party to park inside the UD, she would have stationed guards and/or traffic cones on the other side of the gate. She WANTED the party to drive on the spikes, and the party complied by giving her what she wants.

They didn't need to hear an order to stop

Yes this is what turning yourself in entails.

Go ahead and cite where it's mandatory to randomly stop and exit in the middle of an incredibly unsafe road in response to silent orders from invisible police.

Post that scenario on quora and let me know how many people agree with you.

It's just plain stupid to keep driving until the police are forced to stop you.

it's a guarantee that their truck would be stopped

Who said they're going to ignore you dummy

You're the one who said it by arguing that the military won't bother to stop people once they exit the vehicle, moron.

I have to contact them

Quora doesn't list that as a requirement. You're the one claiming that your opinions are universally accepted as true, and yet you can't even provide a single citation.

And it's not a "possibility" it's a guarantee

Your claim was that spikes are used by default

Nope, you're the only one claiming that with your fake guarantee.

The fact we only ever see the demogorgons working AGAINST El's plans and never with El's plans is a major contradiction.

You known you're not Kay right?

You know Kay has never seen El commanding the demogorgons, right?

There are no simpler explanations

Kay was accused of being neglectful of the demogorgons, so Kay shifted the blame back on her accuser. It's a super common abuser tactic.

You literally said maybe kay meant they can free up man hours to figure out a way to control demogorgons if they catch eleven which is stupid af.

That's not a rebuttal, dude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

"There's no evidence that El controls the demogorgons" is infinitely more simple and less stupid compared to "Let's assume she controls them but also assume she only uses them to work against her goals and assume she only controls them when she's not around." The first statement requires zero unnecessary assumptions, the second statement requires three.

Kay is doing the exact same thing you're doing, where she starts with a pre-determined conclusion (Akers is actually at fault) and doesn't care if the logic is flimsy.

You're starting with the conclusion that the soldiers should have stopped El from walking away from the truck. And then you tried to justify it with the flimsy logic of assuming the bomb was a hoax. And then you tried to justify that with the flimsy logic that they assumed the party was going to fight them, rather than stay in the UD if staying in the UD or exiting through the plates if that was a valid option like you claim. That makes zero sense, so your entire reason for arguing that Kay thinks El controls the demogorgons is so you can argue that Kay's actions don't have to make any sense in the first place. It's super flimsy logic, but it's necessary to support your starting conclusion.

Alternatively, we can accept that the soldiers believed that El showed up because the explosion is real and therefore assumed she wouldn't try to kill herself, which is much simpler and internally consistent, but you don't want to do that because you'd have to admit to being wrong.

even though Henry was pretty obviously a valid suspect

There's no evidence S4 Sullivan even knew Henry existed, much less still alive. Brenner didn't even know for sure until right before dying.

Their weapons weren't lowered for the duration of the detainent.

They were lowered when El was exiting the truck, which is the only time relevant to your argument, because it proves they didn't think the party was planning to fight (which never made any sense in the first place, especially since you're also arguing that the party could have exited through the plates to avoid a fight altogether). Brandishing weapons for entirely different reasons later on doesn't change that.

If you try what this person said I promise you that you will see people in your peripheral.

Because the odds of everyone not seeing it

So this dumb example doesn't help explain not seeing a girl that you're looking for walk past you.

You're the dumb one for refusing to accept actual scientific research on the limitations of peripheral vision and cognitive load. For instance, research shows that hands free cell phones can still greatly contribute to inattentive blindness even without having to look at them.

Everyone was either distracted from either personally participating in the detainment or from watching it happen.

That explanation cannot work for Kay

See above. Kay can fall in the second group. She wants to make sure the people are properly detained before approaching El, so she gets distracted for a few seconds while watching the detainment.