... but I doubt seriously the Good Minister does not want that body cam footage leaked out to the public......
And, again, the news clip simply does not say anything about attitude or combative-ness. On either party's side. You're inferring. He may or may not have been out-of-line in his attitude. Why the assumption that he was ?
To illustrate, I will give you my own personal example: In about 1994, I was on a military base. It was open to the public. My wife and I were on some back country land to go to a place we were told was ideal to walk dogs at . We found a place to park, and were milling about our vehicle, getting ready to go for a hike in the area we'd been told. An MP vehicle came rolling up, and a cop got out and started yelling at us. Told us we were in an off-limits part of the base.
But I had the road map that was passed out at the entry gate, showing the roads that were open. And we had studiously abided by it. But the office was apparently bent out of shape on the location we'd parked at. Supposed to stay on paved roads. But we had parked on a chip-seal (poor-man's pavement) roadside. To which I tried to explain that it appeared "paved" to me. Each time I tried to address his questions and yelling, he'd change the subject and start yelling something else.
He then pulled a gun on us and ordered us back into our vehicle "with hands on the dash". MY WIFE WAS IN TEARS thinking we were about to die, and had done something horrible . I won't go into all the details (too lengthy for this post). He called for backups, and ... sheeesks, it was the biggest thing since Bonnie and Clyde ! Eventually we were escorted the mile or two back to the base exit gate. No tickets, no nothing. I was totally embarrassed. Because I'd been the one to tell my wife I knew the back-country, knew where we could go, etc....
The next day, I became so distraught over the officer's behavior, that I went to the head of the MP's. To file a complaint. They looked into it, and .... upon opening the man's file, found that he had a few other "gun-waving" incident/complaints. This was apparently the final straw. He was demoted from field work. He sued for re-instatement of his job status. So it went to military trial. Those of us who were victim's of his anger-problem, were called in to testify.
The bottom line is, he will never carry a gun again. He was relegated to a desk job for the rest of his life.
I bring in this example NOT to say that this was *necessarily* the case of the "good minister". But why oh why do we start with this assumption ? It is entirely possible that he had been calm and polite. And to be honest with you, SO TOO could the first cop have been "calm and polite". The fact of calling for backups doesn't necessarily mean there was a "fight going on". (or "combative" etc...). With the mere non-ability of the first cop to answer the question of "what law am I breaking question", they could have calmly called for the backups.
It's now as if we start with an assumption that ministers are all hell-raising combative bad-examples ? Why is that ? Perhaps he was just a normal Joe Blow ?