That is a wonderfully naive understanding of the world.

You should ask Alex Pretti how he was able to criticize to criticize the government without repercussion.

IMO This is an even more naive (and dare I say intentionally malicious) bad-faith misinterpretation of the facts.

His death had nothing to do with the Constitution, it was because of a trigger-happy, confused cop who had his back to the guy, then noticed a gun next to him (that another officer previously put there). The US government had no part in that situation at all.

I think that's exactly the point. The constitution didn't prevent his death.

What are cops if they're not the government? Are they private corporations?

I don't understand the issue since no law can physically prevent people from breaking it.

Of course cops are the government, but they're also humans that make mistakes and commit crimes themselves. But this isn't actually related to some greater constitutional crisis or anything, unless you have some evidence that suggests they were instructed to act the way they did... but I've never seen anyone come forward with that yet.

The original argument was that the constitution protects you from government tyranny.

You have government officials tyranizing the population and now the argument is "of course it can't prevent that".

What good is it then?

The US government is responsible for the training of its agents. It is culpable as well.

[deleted]

That's kind of the point.

The constitution is just some rules people wrote up generations ago. It's not a magic spell that has power by itself, it is only effective as a social contract as long as power structures agree to follow it.

If armed government enforcers break it with impunity, what good is it?

If you can't exercise your rights without being murdered by a state sanctioned thug, then it's not really a right. Also, has he been indicted yet? charged?