If a police officer is doing something illegal, you are not legally required to comply. Also, Germany in theory has pretty strict laws about what is considered an appropriate level of force (which is why you're considerably less likely to see a German police officer reach for their gun because even drawing the gun is considered a massive escalation and may require them to file paperwork later).

The objection to the reporting isn't that they weren't injured, it's that the numbers are used to portray protestors as violent even when the injuries were the direct result of police violence.

If I punch you in the face and break my hand, it's at least extremely misleading to report that as a fight in which both parties suffered injuries (mostly because "fight" implies you fought back).

If a police officer stops me for speeding and while giving me a fine dies of a heat stroke because it's really hot and they are dehydrated, did I kill that police officer?

Because that seems to be the logic implied here.

No, in that scenario he "died in the line of duty" or something similar to that.

"XY officers were injured during a police action at protest somewhere" doesn't mean the protesters injured them. You (and sometimes journalists) read things into police press releases that just aren't in there.

It's not about me, I know this. But I also know the reactions (and outrage) of the general public, who think "those violent protestors" are at it again, attacking the police.

Intent is not magic. Even if the police intended to "simply provide some numbers" they (!) need to factor in the reaction of the general public and the media, because they are, in part, responsible for upholding democratic values, of which freedom to protest happens to be one.

> But they were injured during the police action?

Yes, but to many, it might sound like injuries due to protestors attacking them.