Mike Glover

And so he's in the conduct of executing a felony.

What was the obstruction just being there?

Basically interfering in the middle of their movement, because I believe at some point what they were doing is, just like the other video, getting in between the patrol cars.

As he's asked to step back, he's given lawful orders, and then he again continues to interfere.

He's holding a cell phone in his right hand.

He's not doing anything that obviously justifies a shooting.

But the standard for self-defense for law enforcement and Graham v. Conner, this 89 ruling,

has to do with objective reasonableness, right?

Is it objective, is it reasonable that a law enforcement officer in that law enforcement officer's position via their own perspective would think that somebody was seriously going to be harmed or killed?

It's not just killed, it's actually serious bodily injury or death.

And what changes is you have two perspectives.

One, the law enforcement perspective, which is they're given the benefit of the doubt because they're in their conduct of their professional duties.

They're doing a job.

The other person, what is their motivation?

Well, if they're a professional agitator, meaning the video 11 days proves that this is kind of their MO,

and they're doing that, they're not just innocent protesters, which would change the perspective, right?

Because if it's like he was just protesting innocently, he saw a woman was injured or hurt, and then he tried to interject, then you would ask, well, what are his motivations, right?

The protests versus what they're doing right here is the difference between this idea of peacefully protesting and staying in a public area and not interfering with law enforcement officers.

And I think that's the big differentiation in these scenarios is these people are directly interjecting themselves

And in some cases, interdicting police movement.