From "Peace Officer's Pocket Guide to the Revised Code of Washington,
1998-99".

------------
9A.04.110
(4)(a) "Bodily injury", "physical injury", or "bodily harm" means
physical pain or injury, illness, or impairment of physical
condition;

(b) "Substantial bodily harm"  means bodily injury which involves a
temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary
but substantial loss or impairment of any bodily part;

(c) "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a
probability of death, or which causes significant serious permanent
disfigurement, or which causes significant permanent loss or
impairment of any bodily part or organ

-------------
9A.36.011 Assault I -->A Fel
...with intent to inflict great bodily harm...

9A.36.021  Assault II-->B Fel

(a) Intentionally assaults another and thereby recklessly inflicts
substantial bodily harm;
...
(f) Knowingly inflicts bodily harm which by design causes pain or
agony as to be equivalent of that produced by torture.

9A.36.031 Assault III-->C Fel

(d) With criminal negligence, causes bodily harm to another person by
means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce
bodily harm;
...
(f) With criminal negligence, causes bodily harm accompanied by pain
that extends for a period sufficient to cause considerable suffering;
...
(g) Assaults a law enforcement officer or other employee of a law
enforcement agency who was performing his or her official duty at the
time of the assault.

-----------------
9A.76.020  Obstructing a law enforcement officer-->Gross misd

(1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if
that person willfully delays, hinders, or obstructs any law
enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official duties.

-----------------
9A.80.010 Official misconduct-->Gross misd
(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent
to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or
privilege:

(a) He intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law;
or

(b) He intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him
by law.

--------------
9A.84.010 Riot-->C Fel

(1) A person is guilty of the crime of riot if, acting with three or
more other persons, he knowingly and unlawfully uses or threatens to
use force, or in any way participates in the use of such force,
against any other person or against property.

(2) The crime of riot is:
(a) A class C felony , if the actor is armed with a deadly weapon,
(b) A gross misdemeanor in all other cases

-----------------
9A.84.020  Failure to disperse-->Misd
(1) A person is guilty of failure to disperse if:

(a) He congregates with a group of three or more other persons and
there are acts of conduct within that group which create substantial
risk of causing injury to any person, or substantial harm to
property; and

(b) He refuses or fails to to disperse when ordered to do so by a
peace officer or other public servant engaged in enforcing the law or
executing the law.

=================================
Analysis:

How will these laws be applied in the case of police activities in the
past week?  Even lawyers can only guess what the courts will
eventually decide.  But it is up to citizens to determine what we
*mean* by these laws, and to go back to the legislature for
corrections if the courts get it wrong.  

In the context of what we *mean*, my current impression is that:

a) The decision to *not* arrest the vandals early on was official
misconduct. The decision to later avoid areas where vandals roamed
(and were watched by TV crews) and to instead concentrate all forces
on nonviolent protesters was official misconduct.

b) The decision to use vandalism to justify declaration of civil
emergency was official misconduct.  This was intended to justify
riot-style response, which avoided the protesters' willingness to clog
the courts with misdemeanor arrests.  Notice that a riot requires not
just 3 people, but it also requires use of force -- and only the
police were doing that in the videos I've seen. 

c) Given that the police were acting under "color of law", they were
not performing official duties.  Thus the attacks were simply those of
individual citizens upon their neighbors.  The decision to attack
nonviolent protesters with tear gas and rubber bullets in lieu of
simply arresting them was assault III.  The "out of control" police
(as in the video of the groin kick) were assault II.  Smashing of
teeth and other permanent disfigurements qualify as assault I.