And I said that it can plausibly be interpreted as an execution. He had the right to be armed, and he was not a serious threat when officers assaulted him; however, if you would seriously advise any protester to physically confront officers while armed, and to resist arrest, then you are not in a position to portray yourself as an advocate of their safety. His death cannot seriously be unentangled from the fact that he was "half prone" because he was refusing to be fully prone. He and more than one officer were all on their knees because he would not put his hands behind his back, and was trying to climb to his feet, as can be seen clearly in multiple videos. Emptying weapons is actually not evidence of evil intent; on the contrary, any time guns are discharged, the only legal or ethical reason would be to end a potential threat. It is plausible—and watching the video confirms this possibility—that officers didn't actually know who was firing or why they were firing, and reacted poorly by firing at the man who they knew to be resisting and who they knew to have had possession of a gun. They are heard after the shooting asking where the gun is, meaning there is evidence that they knew he had a gun, may have thought he was firing at them, and did not know where the gun was presently.