I'm puzzled for other reasons, but as far as I know, protesting in public areas is a well-defended US constitutional right. Violence or other illegal acts should clearly be prosecuted, if there's sufficient evidence to determine who did what.

It doesn't sound like the protestors were violent in this case. All they did was distribute leaflets outside someone's home. Obviously it was not a lot of fun for the engineer who was targeted.

They threatened to not let him or his family leave his house. If you’re that person, what is a reasonable threat level? Are they going to shout at you? Stare intimidatingly? Lock arms and try to stop you? Punch you? Draw weapons?

Because if I read that pamphlet manifesto, it doesn’t come across as logical and rational - it actually reads more like “borderline unhinged radical”, and who knows what level of “restraint” is acceptable to such a person?

If I’m kept in my home by fear of such - I’m sure there’s a word that captures that, perhaps “imprisoned”, then to me (and in the case of false imprisonment, to the law), the fact that noone or nothing has been hurt or damaged doesn’t make things “non-violent”.