I advocate compliance with the lawful orders of peace officers, if for no other reason than there are laws against failure to comply. However, it irritates me that we as a society have allowed ourselves to be indoctrinated that the only time to question whether or not an order is lawful is after the fact (submit first, question in court). Of course, the reason we do this is because we KNOW that police officers are armed, and willing to escalate force to the point of compliance, being backed by force of law, so it makes good sense to "go with the flow" and sort things out later. I'm not sure I have a better solution, but the idea that just because someone is a police officer, they have a right to seize control of me at any time just irks me. And Ronin brings up a good point: Where does the line get drawn between asserting one's rights, and "resisting a police officer"?