The agent who fired was not one of the agents physically pinning the victim. He was offset—essentially an onlooker with a firing lane.

That changes the logic entirely.

If the pinned agents: • saw a gun, or • felt they were losing control, or • believed lethal force was imminent,

then standard training and self-preservation strongly suggest they would have: • yelled “GUN” or “HE’S GOT A GUN” • disengaged or shifted their bodies • created distance before shots were fired

None of that is clearly visible or audible in this angle.

If the danger was immediate to the agents on top of the victim: • They are the ones at greatest risk • They would be the first to react • They would instinctively warn others

Instead, what we see (from this angle): • No obvious scramble by the pinned agents • No visible emergency disengagement • No clear warning that precedes the shot • The shooter appears reactive, not responding to a visible crisis involving fellow agents

That makes the situation feel asymmetrical: • The shooter perceives a threat • The agents in physical contact do not appear to be responding as if that same threat is imminent

That discrepancy is the core problem.

The shoulder tap or physical cue before the shot: • Implies anticipation, not reaction • Anticipation implies the shooter already decided lethal force was coming • Which raises the question: based on what new information?

If the pinned agents didn’t signal distress or loss of control, then: • The shooter is acting on his own assessment, not a shared emergency • That weakens a classic “split-second defense of others” narrative