I stand by both of those. There are three relevant acts between the two.

Again: you are not justified in grabbing a drink out of someone's hand. The act of doing so is technically considered assault and battery. That act served as provocation for throwing the drink.

Again, if you unjustifiably provoke a response, your reaction to that response is also unjustifiable. If you call me a "fucking moron", spit in my face, and I immediately slap you, you are not justified in using further force against me. My slap will probably not be considered justified, but it was certainly provoked, and would likely be deemed excusable. I would likely be exonerated for that slap.

Your decision to subsequently punch me is unjustified because of your initial provocation, and I am justified in using force to stop you from continuing to punch me.

Here, he shoved her to the ground while she was unjustifiably striking him. His shove was justified.

She tried to get back up off the ground, and he kicked her back down. That is questionable.

He was justified in initially pushing her to the ground. If he reasonably believed she was going to continue her attack when she got back up, he would, indeed, be justified in pushing her back to the ground. If that belief was unreasonable, the kick would not be justified. The same act possibly being deemed just or unjust, the kick was, indeed, questionable.

You have not offered any sort of explanation or challenge to that analysis. I have no reason to think I erred in that analysis. I stand by it, and will continue to stand by it until a reasonable alternative is presented.