Is there a particular reason why they're so hesitant to present their ID to the police officer?

If the officer is willing to violate your rights, what else might they do? Giving them your ID allows them to waste your time running your name through their system. The more time they spend with you, the more time they have to think of some bullshit justification for why they stopped you in the first place.

People die in police custody. People have been permanently maimed and tortured while under arrest.

Know your rights, and cede none of them without protest. They're allowed to ask you to give up your rights, but they're not allowed to take them from you. The law is on your side, even if the cops aren't.

To start: if you're operating a vehicle, your right to refuse to id is pretty slim (they need a reasonable articulable suspicion usually, but there's a chance they have one. Ask for it.).

That said... The laws on this vary state by state. Some states do have stop and id, others do not. Everyone would do well to know the laws for where they are, if they want to refuse id. Even as a motorist, they need a reason to stop you.

Where I am, they'd need to detain me before I'm required to id (as a pedestrian). I am not allowed to lie about my name, so answering, "Mickey Mouse" could technically give them the legal ammo to require real ID (full name, birth date). For a motor vehicle stop they are required to state why they stopped me as the conversation begins. None of this, "do you know why I pulled you over?" and other pretextual stuff.

Some people know their rights and exercise them. The police are supposed to respect those rights. When they do, nothing happens, the video isn't click-worthy and it doesn't get published. I think you're seeing some selection bias.

Audit the audit, civil rights lawyer and other YT channels try to paint an accurate picture of our rights, how and when we can exercise them, and when the police go so far that someone gets paid.

I'll add: the police having a policy of documenting every interaction, and including the name of the person, does not supercede any rights given by law. They get confused or angry sometimes, but as they'd tell us, ignorance of the law is no defense.

Edits: fixed autocorrect.

In Belgium

Section 1 of Article 34 of the WPA specifies that police officers may check someone’s identity when that person has committed a crime or intends to enter a space where there are concerns about potential public disorder. These are known as reactive identity checks in that officers react to an event that has already taken place. The same section also mentions proactive police checks. These are permitted “if they, on the grounds of that person’s behaviour, material clues or circumstances of place or time, have reasonable grounds to think that the person being searched has tried or is prepared to commit a crime or that he/she could disturb or has disturbed public order”.

You are required to carry your identity, which can be any document, and there are limited instances the police would stop you.

It's the US, there is no expectation a person carries their ID unless they are driving, and there is a grab bag of conflicting requirements that basically mean, the more opportunity you hand them to extend the interaction, the more opportunity you give them to escalate. Ie, "defy a lawful order" or "resist arrest" when it's not clear what the order is or that you are being arrested.

I love it...after the incompetent bitch cop says "have a great day sir" he tells her to go fuck herself

Are Belgian police as dangerous as American police?

Might I suggest the channel audit the audit. New video like this with detailed breakdowns every Monday