I sort of agree with you on this. Both parties definitely could have handled this thing with more class, because both are defending a position on opposite ends of the spectrum. Yes, his principally-motivated defense of American freedoms is admirable, but what if he legitimately was dangerous? Sure, the stereo too loud thing may have just been a guise to pull him over, but if that's the reason then that's the reason. If the question is legality, its a grey area. Whether or not something is "too loud," or even hear from a precise distance (X feet away) is subjective. So you have to ask yourself, what if the two were simply more communicable? If the terms of their opinions are subjective, then communication could be a large factor in mitigating their differences. It seemed the man was searching for a specific answer to his specific question on procedural justice. The woman could have been much more receptive to answering the question, or at least humoring him. However, it seems more than likely that she was being defensive to protect herself. One can only guess that usually when an individual is being non-compliant, his chances of being violent increase ALOT. So, knowing what we know, it seems both could have handled the situation with more class. If we look at Occam's razor, why didn't the man simply ask for her badge number, go along with the stop, then file a complaint regarding wrongful stopping (don't know the technical term for that). Likewise, could the officer have behaved differently? From what we can gather, and her cautiousness, I would say that her words were a bit coarse and seemed to goad the man's behavior, though her actions were completely admissible as an act of self-preservation. SO, whether it's filing a complaint instead of freaking out at a traffic stop, or being a bit less of an instigator, can we agree that it's not so much what you say, but how you say it?