If they didn't know they shouldn't have been firing at him. Soldiers in active warzones wouldn't be given such considerations and allowed to just blast people that they don't even know are armed. There is no excuse.
I would like to see any situation where an average citizen could kill somebody in a similar manner and be given the benefit of the doubt. Because "He may or may not have been armed, I don't really know because I couldn't see" would not fly in any US court for any other random civilian.
Police (and people in general) react to what appears. They can't stop time, strip-search Pretti, find nothing, then continue.
I could also say "there is no excuse for you to not understand why ICE did what they did". No point in these judgements, they don't help your argument.
The entire protest isn't a plain protest. They could do their whistling and marching on a public square, yet they walk and whistle along with law enforcement. (I guess the new way to rob a bank would just be to walk in there with the guards, but say that you're protesting and talk about the letters of constitution?)
How is filming in public an "obstruction"? Do cameras or filmers have telekinetic powers? If you then tell me what is the safe radius where this telekinetic power is neutralized. Would an 800mm lens from 500 yards away be safe?
It is if you are doing it during a police operation.
There is also no fixed radius. E.g, if there is a police op in one apartment, you are filming in another, but there is a wall in between, then the distance is miniscule. If you're walking along with the officer and filming the op as it happens, then you are in the radius. Even worse if you're also whistling.
It's been established many times that it is perfectly legal in US law to film US police on US soil .. there's been state by state settings of acceptable distances, etc.
ICE / DHS / Border patrol aren't US police, of course - they are immigration enforcement agents with more limited powers despite assertions by the current US federal administration to the contrary.
It doesn't seem to be legal to interfere with police work https://youtu.be/QePoawDA_48?si=0mr-lMR_lIRoBDA_, e.g, film or whistle during an operation. The constitution doesn't apply as naively as you think.
The video gives vague platitudes about filming limits just saying "do not obstruct" well duh, now define what not obstructing means, show case laws about the right radius or whatever else to film. No where does the video show he was "legally obstructing" the policework, just cites that a filmer must not obstruct.
I'm sure that the investigation into the Alex Pretti event will give you more exact platitudes to rely on. Unlikely will its determination concur with yours, unfortunately. (But the future will tell, right!)
For Alex Pretti, there is already a video found where he kicks a police car's tail light loose during an earlier protest (while also carrying a gun to that event, too), so circumstances are stacking against him, unfortunately.
I'd say, simply don't bring a gun to a protest! As then police won't need to do split second decisions about whether you are using lethal force against them or not.
To me saying "simply don't bring a gun to a protest" is according to constitutional law the same as saying "just don't say politically inflammatory things around officers who might accidentally interpret it as a personal threat and beat you".
If cops are too pussy for their job they can quit anytime, nobody's stopping them. The public should not have to give up firearms just because cops piddle their pants ehile being armed armoured ten times as much.
The Alex Pretti shooting is what started this thread (way up).
Though back to filming, while it's legal to just film a cop, then it may not be while an operation is ongoing. If you film the operation in quiet then I guess it's up to debate whether that is interfering with police work. But the protesters were also whistling along with the officers, i.e, giving away that they're there, etc.
