Tricia, thank you for this question. I will try not to take it on a hay ride : )
IMO ONLY From LE perspective, these encounters are becoming more dangerous because many misunderstand where the legal lines are. There's widespread belief that as long as no physical contact happens, nothing unlawful is happening. This is getting people injured and killed.
Assault does not require physical contact. What matters is whether someone’s actions create a reasonable fear of imminent harm. When people deliberately close distance, step into an agents path, or force a moment where the agent must stop, or push through, that behavior is no longer passive protest. It is perceived as obstruction and a safety risk to the agent.
Agents aren’t evaluating these moments in slow motion or with the benefit of replay. They are assessing intent, proximity, movement, and threat in real time, often with shouting, bizarre whistles blowing non stop, frozen water bottles being thrown at them, car horns honking nonstop, crowd pressure, and limited visibility. When someone engineers a confrontation through movement, the agent must make a split-second decision based on safety, not speculation about motives.
There is no right to physically obstruct a federal agent performing official duties. To me Mr. Pretti was obstructing. From the agent’s standpoint, being blocked, crowded, or forced into unavoidable contact is a legitimate safety concern, not a political disagreement.
A struggle was clearly underway, someone yelled “gun,” and at least one firearm was involved, which would reasonably heighten fear in a fast-moving, chaotic encounter. From the agents POV it’s possible they did not know whether a weapon had already been secured or whether the person had another weapon. What did the agent(s) reasonably perceive at the time? I suspect we are going to hear this was not one (singular) agent that fired reportedly 10 times, but more than one. I believe this all went down in four seconds. IMO
