Your point is well taken. Nonetheless, a law, or the interpretation of a law by a policeman, that depends on the feelings or whims of another are generally letting individual rights be overturned by the masses. In your case, an individual right, the right to self defense, is upheld.
Fido969 (post #23) and mvpel (post #20)also makes very good points that dovetail with mine...this is an anti-brandishing law that has been inappropriately implied by a cop who is either ignorant of the law or has an agenda contrary to it.