I see a tactic often in these protests/counter protests, mostly by the anti-Trump & Anti-fa crowd but I'm sure it goes both ways. The tactic is the hands up (surrender) or down (by waist) and chest/shoulder bumping the person you're face to face with in an attempt to provoke or move them from their position.

Granted this will vary state to state and maybe even city to city. But it appears that this is still assault. So here is an example to work with. Two Protestors, A & B.

- A is at a legally organized rally.
- B is a protestor to the rally.
- B's group is causing issues and harassing the group A is with.
- B decides the words aren't enough and walks over to confront A.
- A holds his ground as part of the rally.
- B becomes verbally aggressive
- A holds his ground and doesn't counter the aggression
- B gets frustrated, puts his hands up and chest bumps A with the "what are you gonna do"
- A tells B to stop
- B repeats three more times
- A gets fed up and tells him this is the last warning
- B does it again
- As B contacts A, A punches B and drops him

Assuming that there is clear video evidence so all details as described above are known, who gets arrested and charged? What would happen in court?

Both maybe get taken away for the evening, depending on how much of a disturbance was caused. B has committed assault and battery, A has committed a "worse" battery but has done so in defense of himself.

Neither get charged, B got his punishment and A did nothing wrong. If B were to get charged and take the case to trial he might get convicted, but my guess is a jury would just throw up their hands and say this was a waste of time.

I should add that the first seven bullet points were not relevant to my answer.

B

D) all of the above.

B, assault. Perhaps even disorderly conduct before the altercation occurs.

We do things a little different. While not always possible, we attempt to go hands on long before punches get thrown.

Locally, we've learned this. Hands on. Early and often. Example. Agency A attempts to pacify a crowd. Keeps yelling to disperse, nothing to see here. Crowd becomes more and more agitated shouting the standard party lines of "the police just want to shoot black people" etc. Crowd is screaming profanities. Officers get pushed by a member of the crowd, then the officer gets punched. Near riot existing at this time. They call for help. Agency B shows up. Agency B rolls out of the cars with batons, hickory sticks, and LL shotguns. Agency B goes to work on the crowd with batons, hickory sticks, and LL shotguns. Crowd gone within a couple of minutes.

The next time this happens, and there will be a next time, when Agency B rolls in, what do you think happens? Yeah, the crowd gets out of Dodge.

Pacification of crowds do not work. There is no legal permit for violence. The answer is go hands on early and often. That has been the correct answer forever, but it was masked by Holder/Lynch DOJ who had other plans for what they wanted to see in urban "justice".

The 1st Amendment guarantees your right to assemble and protest, not to commit assault, battery, or other crimes.

I take a long view on violations when a crowd is present. Unlawful touching of another is a battery (chest bumping, shoving, etc). Placing another in fear by threatening to harm another with the ability to do so is an assault. Inciting to riot is another law that can be involved, and disorderly conduct is a lower level offense that may occur before any of the others. All of these and others are tools law enforcement can use to establish control in a crowd situation. Entry control to the area, police videographers, equine patrols, and barricades to separate the protestors are a few techniques that can help but that all requires planning and resources.

Violence that erupts at protests usually erupts with a shove or a punch. Law enforcement can keep these things from snowballing by snatching up the first minor offenses early on. The biggest mistake an agency can make is to be tolerant of minor offenses they see and then things spiral out of control from there. Strict enforcement tends to produce a more civil climate. Every cop on the street understands this but agencies are often constrained by lack of sufficient manpower, or by orders from above to let the minor stuff go. If you start arresting people it creates a logistical train processing prisoners that eats up manpower and takes cops off the street. Arrests for Minor offenses may or may not ultimately get a conviction, but the arrest can solve the immediate problem on the street.

I preferred protests where my cops were there in big numbers and we were able to take the instigators off the board early on. Unfortunately most agencies don't have the manpower or the budgets to commit that much in resources, the crowd is just too big, or the political establishment won't support the police in aggressive enforcement.

A peaceful protest where violence erupts is something that can be minimized with appropriate early police response. A crowd that shows up with the goal to riot is an entirely different animal that requires an entirely different response. It's important to know the difference.

OP,
You are correct in the assumption that B is in the wrong...
Most of the time as a cop we come in on the tail end of things and never see the whole picture.
So, A and B would get a trip to the Magistrate and the Magistrate would hear both sides of the story and issue charges as the Magistrate sees fit.

Now, if I saw the whole deal as you have spelled it out, B gets a trip to the pokey and a charge of inciting a riot and assault (the chest bump is an assault and a battery ((although in NC the laws don't separate the charges)))

When or if it actually got to court, the sitting District court Judge would be loath to have B continue tying up his time and B would most likely get a 5-7 day sentence in jail (suspended of course if he promises to be good in the future)