An article on the Guardian today with the following excerpts
Bin Laden, according to a briefing on Monday, used his wife as a human shield and she was killed. By Tuesday, the White House reversed that: she had not been used as a human shield and she was not dead. The other point of discrepancy was the initial briefings that stated Bin Laden resisted and was killed in a "firefight", which suggests he had been armed. The White House insisted he had resisted, without saying how, but said he had no gun.
Did the Obama administration deliberately suggest he had hidden behind his wife as part of an attempt to portray him as a cowardly figure? Did it want to suggest he was armed to avoid criticism that US forces shot dead an unarmed man? Was it just part of the fog of war, with a clear account only available when those engaged in the mission are fully debriefed?
Carney added a crucial detail. "Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed," Carney disclosed. Asked how he had resisted if he had no gun, Carney declined to specify but said resistance does not require a gun.
Guess not. Shielding your body with your arms might then be construed as resistance right?