Yup, the rule of the moment is to weave political undertones into legal matters. The movement is to undermine economic progress with the strategic presentation of political doctrines as law. The replacement of law with politics is an unmistakable feature of the left which the right also readily buys into.

I only know what a friend from long ago reports on FB. She claims the private security acted disgracefully. She did not get the sense that the protesters were paid. Not knowing any real details, the story reminds me vaguely of the protestors in Oregon a year ago who seized control of a building after the gov't charged landowners with terrorism crimes carrying long prison sentences for very minor crimes involving the use of their own land.

This case is different because it's no the gov't but private thugs doing the violence. I am not knowledgeable of the legal details of either case, but I deplore the use of violence. I am immediately biased against someone who attacks non-violent protestors with dogs and against authorities that bring terrorism charges against people for minor violations.

I believe this article is wrong that protesters threatened the security forces. It makes me distrust everything else in the article. I believe some of the security forces acted disgracefully. I suspect some of the organizers hoped that might happen to bring attention to their cause.