He was clearly resisting them getting him on the ground. His hands were also about to be out of view of the officers when they took him down.
Obviously you have never been in any sort of extremely high stress situation. His hands were up until he got rushed and then he took a posture that was purely protective. It is plain instinct to resist being violently thrown to the ground by multiple aggressors, in these kinds of extremely high stress situations fight or flight kicks in and your brain literally takes over your body regardless of what your conscience mind wants it to do. This is a well known and understood phenomenon. Also it's pretty well known that when you have multiple people shouting different things at you during a high stress encounter a lot of people tend to freeze for a moment which is what it appears he did. They never gave him a real chance to comply.
Think of how when you fall and your arms try to brace your fall without any actual thought process taking place. You have resorted to blaming a man for not allowing himself to be violently thrown to the ground, despite the fact that it ended up happening anyway and any rational person would have known that it would, when it is very likely that he had no actual control over it.
I've always found it kind of fucked up that people refuse to comply with police commands or use basic common sense when dealing with police, then act as though they did nothing wrong.
Point in fact, he did do nothing wrong. Even after getting some asshole DA to accept the bullshit charges a judge dismissed them so even the judicial system believes that he did nothing wrong. By all accounts he is one of the "good guys", someone the police are supposed to protect and serve not physically accost and drag him through unwarranted, needless and bullshit criminal charges.
Would you be OK with someone calling in a trespasser on their neighbor's property, the cops showing up, and it turns out the "trespasser" was actually just the owner who then immediately shoots the cops for trespassing as soon as they step foot on his property? Because, by your logic, the homeowner would be in the right since they wouldn't have had a valid reason to go onto his property after factoring in hindsight.
That is an absurd analogy that is unworthy of response.