To sum up, the police have claimed the firing two rubber bullets as shown in the video was justified because the protesters had allegedly escalated from passively resisting the officers by standing there, to actively resisting them.
There is nothing in the video showing that the protesters had started actively resisting or had started assaulting the officers.
What the video does show is that a member of a police assault team reached from behind the police front line in an effort to grab a protester, and haul him back behind the police front line so they could deal with him individually, away from the rest of the protesters. The attempt was unsuccessful. But the police appear to be claiming that the crowd’s natural reaction to the police grab is what justified the use of the rubber bullet.
Also, the bullet was used by police on someone known to be a journalist, who was recording. Because the police fired two separate times specifically at this known journalist, one might infer that the police were specifically setting up this incident for that purpose.
“To sum up, the police have claimed the firing two rubber bullets as shown in the video was justified because the protesters had allegedly escalated from passively resisting the officers by standing there, to actively resisting them.”
Their allowed force guidance only allows use of that weapon if resistance is “active”. That is the dispute and besides that obviously the reporters wasn’t actively resisting anything or anyone. “Active” refers to physical resistance, contact with officers, striking them, throwing things, etc.