Your causality is reversed.

The dude was literally just standing there on a public sidewalk with his hands up. He never initiated the altercation or otherwise impeded any lawful investigation.

The agent chose to initiate the altercation during which the victim was pepper sprayed, pinned to the ground by six people, disarmed, and then shot ten times.

Not what happened.

Because I was baselessly accused of lying, here's one video taken from the sidewalk (there are probably more copies of this with more views, but it's what came up in my search):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKsWCDbnMW4

The man coming into frame at :09 is Pretti. As can clearly be seen a few frames later, he is already on the road at this point and walking towards the middle of the road. By :14, as the camera backs up, we can see that the crack in the road he straddled right after coming into frame was in fact in the main traffic lane, not the lane with the stopped white car. (I do not say "parked" because there appears to be a woman sitting behind the wheel who might have the intent to leave, but for the altercation in front of her.) At :22 the camera turns back to Pretti (whose location could be inferred in the interim from his shadow) and he is standing over the median.

From :26 he can be seen making hand gestures, either to direct traffic or otherwise communicate with drivers, such as the one coming into frame and honking a horn. The fact that the horn is honked implies that the driver perceives Pretti as being in the way, and at :28 we can see that car swerve slightly to accommodate him. At :35, as the officer pushes a woman while they are both in front of the stopped car, Pretti is still also in the road. He can then be seen approaching the officer and physically interposing himself between the officer and the woman, and raising an arm to block the officer. He is at this point on the road shoulder, not the sidewalk. As he helps the woman up, both of them get sprayed; at :42 he again physically interposes, as if to shield the woman. He is then pulled up (and presumably already under arrest) and eventually separated from the woman, which he clearly physically resists; then he resists the officers who attempt to wrestle him to the ground. This "ground" is squarely in front of the stopped car. There is an extended scuffle; it takes until :59 for him to be disarmed (although it doesn't appear that any other officer would be able to see that this has happened), and the first gunshot is audible at 1:02.

Regardless of any mitigating factors in Pretti's conduct, or reasons why the shoot would be unlawful (and I have now seen analyses by many lawyers that appear very well reasoned, and there is much less consensus among them than there was in the Good case), the video inarguably shows all the things I claimed:

* He was in the street the entire time.

* He was physically attempting (and mostly successful) to get in between the officer and the woman.

* Because the woman is still in the street, and her interaction with the officer didn't start there (as seen in other video) it is entirely plausible that the officer intends to arrest her for obstruction.

I mean if you see anything in that video other than an ICE "officer" that needs to be in jail I'm very sad to presumably share a country with you. You can argue with me about how cool it is to mace a guy trying to keep a goon from manhandling a woman (don't give a fuck what you think about an "arrest" you are probably incorrectly assuming will happen, he should be in jail for that alone) all you want, but I'm not licking boots with you.

Unless you are in Canada you do not in fact share a country with me.

I told you what I saw. I posted evidence to prove that someone else's statements were false. Now you are shifting the goalposts.

Comments like yours blatantly violate HN posting guidelines.

Ok. I'm comfortable with calling a convenient narrow interpretation and over-simplification of the actions of the secret police force "not what happened" regardless of your play-by-play. Technically correct is not actually the best kind of correct.

And remember, they are called "guidelines" for a reason. But thanks for doing your best at policing the tone here, very important work you're doing.

Trying to tone it down here, I appreciate you are providing an outside perspective but these events are very stressful, like I'm watching my country fall apart, and so are a bunch of us here. So expect some serious vitriol even if you are presenting what you consider factual or reasonable analysis.

This character has spent a few thousand words now on this and holds fast in spite of all the contrary evidence, at some point you have to wonder what is going on but I'm happy it's not my problem. He just won't stop, just keeps on digging. Check comment history if you won't believe me it is about as wild as it gets on HN.

Congrats on being able to recount the official version of events.

I am recounting the events that I personally witnessed on video from multiple angles and which can clearly be seen by any impartial viewer. If you think anything I said is untrue, quote it, and provide actual evidence of it being untrue.

I also did not violate HN guidelines in my comment and it should not have been flagged.

Why is it so important for you to defend government killing citizens? Let’s say they broke the law, neither did anything that would deserve a death penalty much less instant execution by some racist coward wearing a mask.

I agree and didn't flag you

She was stopped by the ICE pigs and the pig who was “in front” literally walked in front of the car and wouldn’t have been in the way even had she driven off as he was on her front left and she had her wheels turned all the way to right.

Only one having bad faith are you MAGA clowns