Phil refuses to answer virtually any questions about the case including information that is public. It is amusing to me that people are willing to support his "cause" on PayPal without knowing exactly what happened other than that he pissed off a bunch of cops.
It never crossed anyone's mind around here that he might be guilty of one or more of the charges despite the fact that contempt of cop was a huge element in this thing? The tapes make it pretty clear that Phil thought the proper place to vindicate his rights was on the street and not in a court of law.
I think sympathy from the jurors will be very hard to come by when they hear the tapes in court . . . it sounds as though he made a scene when his "rights" were violated rather than dealing with the issue in a productive manner.
Is this what society has come to? The point where "rights" need to put in quotes, since they don't really exist? And of course, asserting them is "making a scene"?
Anyway, would love to hear your suggestions for alternate means for getting the courts to address this issue -- are you honestly ignorant enough to believe that if he had been polite, co-operative, and deferential, that he could have still pushed this issue into the court system? Your whole post seems to originate from a parallel universe in which cops don't overstep their bounds and courts are willing to accept cases based on what didn't happen.