A protest is ordinarily not a story. The police suppressing a protest is a story. Protestors understand this, and there's a whole romanticism around getting arrested on camera.
Over the last month we've seen the strongest proof of this that one could imagine. In India, 250 million farmers and associated union members went on strike. Somehow this event went completely unreported by USA journalists. In nations where the USA "defense" department could conceivably waste more money, the threshold is considerably lower than 250M... more like, say, ten? Twenty? Possibly a hundred protesters in Syria or Hong Kong would be worth a report.
Instead, you need to announce a permit for a demonstration. If you don't have one, the police will tell you to leave the premise. If you fail to comply, you might get arrested, even if you don't use violence. But the part where protestors fail to comply with (reasonable and legal) instructions by the police is the part you omit.
Whereas I never got into trouble with the police. Partly because I got the popular skin colour, gender, etc but also because I know when to be obedient and sincere. I can only recommend the same. Pick your battles!
If they did, you would see police initiating physical violence against a group of otherwise non-violent protesters.
> Instead, you need to...
Or else, you would see police initiating physical violence against a group of otherwise non-violent protesters.
In a brutal dictatorship, violent suppression of dissent is direct and obvious. In your democratic country it is hidden among "reasonable and legal" stages; this keeps the Good Citizens [1] obedient and sincere.
----
As many protesters will tell you, in a lot of cases the police start the fight. Are you saying you're okay with them being able to just silence you? What do you propose doing when they use violence to shut down your protest?