First: defendant engaged in tumultuous behavior - CHECK.
Second: defendant’s actions were reasonably likely to affect the public - CHECK.
Third: defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm - CHECK.
Seems to me like he was arrested because, I don’t know - HE WAS ACTING AGAINST THE DISORDERLY CONDUCT LAW!
(Can someone show me, where it reads, “If you are on your own property, this law does not apply to you!” - I missed that paragraph.)
One of the elements the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were reasonably likely to affect the public & cause a public inconvenience.
"Public" as defined by the Instruction 7.160:
"For the defendant to be found guilty, his (her) actions must have been reasonably likely to affect the public, that is, persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access."
I s'pose that lying on your bed, muttering into your pillow, "This is what happens to a Black/White Man/Woman in America", then privacy or property rights come into play.
But looks like your front porch which is 15' from a public way in Cambridge doesn't cut it.