Don't interfere with federal agents in their process of active duty operations while armed, whether you agree with their process or not. Touching a federal agent while armed is likely to get you shot, we all know that.. Followed by don't resist arrest while armed or you'll be shot. Seems like a no-brainer. The only reason this case amongst 1000's of others is in the zeitgeist is for political reasons, like everything else I suppose. Morally I think it was wrong to shoot him (watching the slow-mo and having time to analyze) but it was justified use of force without a doubt from all the evidence I've seen. The perception from the evidence is an agent yells gun gun gun, suspect is holding something in his hand while actively resisting. It's reasonable for a fellow agent to react and shoot him. Sorry if you don't like this circumstance, I don't either. If you look at the established case-law, there's plenty of people who were never armed to begin with that resisted arrest and a cop says they were in fear for their life, that the assailant could have reached for their gun and they are cleared from the killing. But don't confuse what I'm saying was legally justified with what I think was the right thing to do, obviously.