and straight accused her of assault.

I continue to straight up accuse her of assault. Two counts of simple assault, two counts of battery, one count of assault with a deadly weapon.

I continue to defend his initial push, as well as the final shove. I do not defend the throwing of the liquid in her face: It was provoked, but it was unjustified. I provided a reasonable doubt as to the kick; his kick is only defensible if that doubt exists.

You keep trying to sound like you know the law and you don’t.

The law requires the accused be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I have incorporated that standard into my analysis.

You’ve proven that with your misunderstanding of what intent means.

Intent is not particularly relevant here. Only justification is relevant. The only unjustified acts of his were the throwing of the liquid (which was a provoked act and likely excusable) and possibly the kick (which could potentially be considered justifiable as I have previously described.)

Her unjustified acts include the initial grabbing of the glass, the initial striking with the hands, and the continued menacing with the beer bottle.

Is there some part of this that I have not properly or adequately considered?