You don’t understand that intent literally decides if things are a misdemeanor or not.

Yeah, kinda, sorta.

Let's try this again. The use of force against another person is generally unlawful. "Intent" does not make it lawful. "Intent" might be the difference between negligence and aggravated assault, but it does not determine legality of force.

"Justification" determines legality. Generally, speaking, all uses of force are unlawful. Generally. Use of force is only lawful in those specific circumstances where it is justified. You can use any degree of force you want, so long as the broader external circumstances specifically justify that use of force. For example, if I spin around in circles with my fists out and my eyes closed, you are justified in using some degree of force to stop me from hitting you. My intent in spinning is not relevant. Your intent to cause me harm is not particularly relevant. (It is only relevant if it exceeds the "reasonable person" standard) If you perceive a significant, unjustified threat of harm to any person, including yourself, you are justified in using a reasonable level of force to stop that harm.

The actual intentions of the actual actors is wholly irrelevant. The "intent" of a "reasonable person" in the same situation as the actors is the closest that "intent" comes to the issue.

In focusing on "intent", you are looking at the mindset of the individuals. It is not necessary to look at the mindset of either of these individuals. All we have to look at is each forceful act, and determine justifiability.

I would remind you: you are not justified in using force against either a justified use of force, or against an unjustified use of force that you have previously provoked.

With that, I am perfectly willing to explore the justification for each forceful act in that video.