You keep saying that YouTube is filled with examples of this type of situation. You CANNOT make that statement. You do not know why those other arrests were made.
Understand that if you accidentally bump into a police officer while they are conducting their jobs, you can be arrested for assault and interfering with a police officer! If you do this while acting like a true A$$HAT, then you are more likely to be arrested simply to get you out of the way and out of the picture to allow the police to complete their jobs.
What part of this are you missing? I know, I know, he was on his own property. You do NOT have the right to create a scene that could become hostile even if you are on your own property.
With you logic, the saying, “You cannot yell, ‘Fire!’, in a crowded theater.” would be, “You cannot yell, ‘Fire!’, in a crowded theater, unless you own the property.”
No argument is more popular, on both the left and right, with those who restrict free speech. Oliver Wendell Holmes used it as ane excuse after WWI to justify a terrible violation of the first amendment. This popular catch phrase also obscures reality. The person who is shouting fire in a crowded theater is guilty of violating the property rights of the owner and the contractual rights of those attending the show. That particular example has NOTHING to do with the first amendment and everything to do with property and contract rights. Gates had a right to free speech on in his own home!!! If he doesn't have that right, we might as well have a bonfire with the bill of rights.
"Could become"? That's pretty squishy, but I'd say Gates was already hostile. But there was no reason to think that the situation was going to become violent or otherwise criminal, particularly if the LEOs left.
With you logic, the saying, “You cannot yell, ‘Fire!’, in a crowded theater.” would be, “You cannot yell, ‘Fire!’, in a crowded theater, unless you own the property.”
A better analogy would be the theater owner yelling, "this movie sucks and the director is a Nazi!."