You are free to do that, of course and I applaud you for fighting for your rights. However, the video gives the wrong impression that this is a method via which one can go through a checkpoint with less hassle, whereas in reality if this method works, you're dealing with cops that won't bother you needlessly anyway; but if it doesn't, you're dealing with cops that will make your day a living hell for standing up for your rights. From a game-theory perspective it's absolutely the worst choice. No matter of standing up for your rights seems to have any systemic effect anyway.

My perspective might be different because I grew up in the Eastern Bloc, where the winning strategy was always complying while hiding contraband and bribing officials. No amount of anyone fighting for any rights ever had any effect, what happened in the end is that the economy collapsed and things had to change at the top forcibly. If you want to fight because of some personal sense of honour, of course you should do that. But from an everyday practical game-theory perspective, the winning strategy for both the game and the meta-game is to comply with whatever the cop wants to see.

In many cases they're the same thing, given the probability differential in enforcement; a strategy that works great for people in one group can also be the excuse for excessive enforcement against another, who indirectly pick up the tab for the first group's sociopolitical privilege debt. Disadvantaged outgroups should not have to incur predictably higher levels of abuse for their political concerns to become valid.