dennisrwoo introduced the comparison through their work w/inmates. It's not a perfect comparison but it's a profession that has similar control-of-situation requirements so I was curious how they had successfully used de-escalation in situations where inmates demanded control.
The first thing he says to the officer after rolling down his window is "Don't knock on my window like that." The officer asks why he doesn't have his seatbelt on, Hill refuses to answer and instructs the officer again to not knock on the window. (A possible de-escalation here would be for the officer to submit to Hill's direction and apologize for knocking on the window--though it would hinder further communication.) Hill then instructs the officer to "Give me my ticket bro so I can go." Then he instructs the officer to "Do what you gotta do." as he rolls up his window.
At this point the officer has no means to communicate with, observe, or give papers to Hill, and chooses to violate Hill's dictate and knocks again on the window. The officer loudly states: "Keep your window down." Hill slightly lowers the window and states: "Don't tell me what..."
At that point it becomes hard to follow what is being said but at 1:45 of the video the officer instructs Hill to get out of the car. There's some argument that's hard to follow, and at 1:51 they apparently open the door (I was shocked it wasn't locked). I'd agree that a de-escalation situation here is possible as Hill clearly realizes his act has been called and pivots from ordering the officers around to being in victim mode.
The video I posted addresses your questions pretty well. Simply put, the tinted windows isn't why he was pulled over and didn't hinder their ability to go write him a ticket after he gave them is ID.
The video you linked states, in Terry v. Ohio, that inspecting the driver's license, automobile registration, and proof of registration, and attending to safety concerns are part of the officer's "traffic mission". It seems pretty clear cut that is the longstanding precedent that justifies their actions during this stop.
I'm puzzled at how many people come to that conclusion, but disagreement is what makes life interesting. It'll make for some though provoking legal discussion if he decides to pursue a case, and could result in a shift in the balance of power during traffic stops towards drivers.