Legally speaking it probably depends on law enforcement actually being in their right to grab the other protestor in the first place?

In practice I had experience of protests in 2010s Russia, and legitimacy is another huge factor there. E.g. even if the law enforcement was in the legal right to grab the other protestor, is it ok that they had the right in the first place.

I'm not saying either of these apply, but that because legality and legitimacy of grabbing a protestor is often unclear this de facto is a normal behavior at a protest and should not have any severe punishment attached to it.

In the US, there is no civilian privilege to physically interfere with an arrest, even if the arrest is later found to be unlawful. Legality is and must be adjudicated after the fact; real-time obstruction is in and of itself a very serious criminal offense.

What may be common at protests is irrelevant, other than perhaps raising the question of why riotous behavior has become an accepted norm among certain demographics. Such behavior as Pretti demonstrated is not — and has never been — constitutionally protected.

Physically inserting oneself between officers and another person constitutes illegal interference, not protected protest, and predictably escalates the risk of serious injury or death — especially in a volatile crowd, when the interference is violent, and especially when the individual is carrying a loaded firearm.

There’s simply no legal right to obstruct law enforcement. Doing so is a serious crime, and, as clearly demonstrated by the ultimate outcome of his consistent pattern of behavior, extremely dangerous.

Which is precisely why the conduct is illegal in the first place, why engaging in it was unjustifiable, and why characterizing it as “protest” is politically motivated sleight of hand.

This whole comment ignored the legitimacy part which is non-trivial in this case.

My understanding is ICE ignored state court orders (I did not look up details, might be very wrong on this one), from which point on any activity of theirs could have been illegitimate if not outright illegal. Preventing any of their activity might be considered a duty in a sense that it is pushing them to abide by lawful court orders.

I was quite clear on that. You cannot interfere with law enforcement.

> In the US, there is no civilian privilege to physically interfere with an arrest, even if the arrest is later found to be unlawful. Legality is and must be adjudicated after the fact; real-time obstruction is in and of itself a very serious criminal offense.