If blinded, it's interesting how five officers could positively claim the flashlight they were blinded with was mounted on a rifle. (To be so positive in the claim, they couldn't have been "blinded." If actually "blinded," thus couldn't have seen sufficiently well to know, then they must be making up the claim out of whole cloth.)
Thirty seconds later, the officers met with and spoke to the people in question. Hard to claim, then, that they were "resisted or impeded" at all. As for "assaulted," that rests on the claim of having a rifle aimed at them (which they couldn't see since they were blinded).
Not that I think much of this NFAC group, nor how they conducted themselves. (Let alone the negligent discharge that occurred when they mucked about that day.) It's just that this "flashlight at AR distances is a crime" sounds like a ball of crap to me, designed to dredge up something that could mess with the guy.
20yrs for getting lit by lights. Sounds about right.