3 ms·

He was practicing civil disobedience. Calling him an "idiot" is missing the point.

• tptacek 13y ago
  He was not practicing civil disobedience, because he wasn't deliberately violating any law. He seems instead to be the victim of an assault.
  • fencepost 13y ago
    He indeed was the victim of an assault, which IMHO is not mutually exclusive with his behavior being idiotic. There is a good argument to be made for this being civil disobedience in that he was refusing the orders of law enforcement officials, but in this particular case the evidence later showed that (roughly) A) the officers ordering him out of the car had no legal authority to do so and B) the officers who did have the legal authority to do so didn't actually order him out before breaking in, tasing, etc. At his later trial he was found not guilty of all the charges against him based on this - I don't know if civil disobedience was even brought up but I doubt it.