Chris acted irrationally and had the right to do so. However, by his intent to spread irrationality by removing the officer's choice, the officers were eventually
baited into acting irrationally which then led to the arrest. If they knew more about these types of removal of choice, and how they may spread by their very presence, it may have had a different and more desirable outcome for all involved.
Detecting trolls is important, in other words.
Stating it is reasonable that an individual has a right to choose irrationality removes the leading portion of your question which itself is a removal of choice by those who attempt to answer it. Applying rational thinking to answering it reveals an important question to ask ourselves:
> Why is it reasonable for men vested with the authority to enforce the law for the peace of society?
I think it is somewhat rational for individuals of a group to elect a sub-group to make choice for the individuals. In the case of law, which is suppose to be a rational instantiation of future choice for the group, it is the peacekeepers that are responsible for making choice of who is removing choice from other individuals or the group, as a whole.
However, irrational laws and expectations do creep into the group from time to time. Benjamin Franklin once spoke to this by stating, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
A corollary to this insight would be: "Those who would give up temporary Rationality, to purchase a little temporary Liberty, deserve neither Rationality nor Liberty."
Edit: Safety equated to Rationality.