So you assert that there is some prima facia obstruction going on here but refuse to clearly state what the obstructive behavior is?

No, you just claimed that anyone saying he wasn't obstructing is engaging in a fallacious argument.

He wasn't obstructing, he was filming them. That's a literal fact, not a fallacy.

I don't understand why you are trying to defend through debate tactics the morality of shooting someone down on their knees while 4-6 agents of the State pile on top.

Does it really matter what rhetorical mechanism someone tries to use for this defence?

Surely you mean moving the goalposts?