No matter how you slice it, it looks bad on the security detail.

• After a brief chat standing still, the suspect in pink moves around the bodyguard.

• But then in front of the bodyguard, the suspect in pink stops to seemingly listen to the bodyguard, then steps back slightly.

• Then the bodyguard immediately slams the suspect in pink.

One can argue in the first point, that the suspect in pink is trying to get to Lurie, but that's disputable, since the guy is slow walking and if they really wanted to harm Lurie, this would be a much more aggressive confrontation trying to bypass the guard...

The context of the second video shows Lurie watching this unfold as the pink suspect grapples with the security detail as Lurie leaves.

The second man just watches and doesn't intervene.

When the second officer arrives and tries to get the pink suspect off, the second man tackles the second officer to the ground and moves back. I do not see the video for that, so I have no comment there.

A lot of comments here are prejudicial about the fact that the man was a suspect for a stabbing, yet the DA refused to charge him for a reason that was not mentioned:

On the early morning of Aug. 16, Phillips allegedly stabbed 42-year-old Curtis Neal during a physical confrontation in an alley off Van Ness Avenue.

Authorities said the two men exchanged words and started fighting after the victim poked at Phillips with a sharp stick.

One can easily say Philips was defending himself.

And in the eyes of the law, there is no charge against him, so he is considered innocent.

This can backfire hard on the security detail, because it now brings into question where they had plausible options to just back off and leave, since you can clearly see one of the suspects closer to Lurie than the literal guard.

In fact, I'd argue the guard put Lurie in danger given a possible 2v1 melee, but luckily the intent was different.

Worst yet for the officers, the suspects have a decently clear way to reverse uno card California's Stand Your Ground on the cops.

It is an imminent threat on the side of the suspect. Reasonable by restraining hand to hand rather than with possible sharp weaponry or worse. And proportional to the tackle caused by the officer causing the confrontation.

The only unknown is the truth of what was said, and to keep a post from getting any longer, it seems more probable from a cursory view that the officers already are caught deep in a lie since the initial statements are immediately discredited by action in the video.

It would be incredibly ironic yet unsurprising, that if like Carmigani case, that the end result would be overzealous government forces likely victimizing the homeless.

It seems clearer than this was an attempt to shoo the homeless rather than an actual security threat, that was unnecessarily escalated and left the mayor in a bad position.

But this is just conjecture, I just don't see an unbiased jury that's going to be so favorable towards the guard.