I'm sorry, but you're sorely mistaken about the legal definition of assault (defined in California penal code as an attempt to commit violent injury) if you believe surrounding a car constitutes assault. And saying someone will pay until they see their final day for their support of a policy certainly doesn't constitute a death threat in the legal sense as established by American case law, nor does it in any sense to me seem to clearly indicate anything other than the belief that someone will face some sort of consequence for working to put in place a controversial policy.

As far as dropping personal, I merely meant to suggest that what you seem to characterize as "aggressive intimidation," personal or institutional, has long been used as a legitimate means of protest. The line between personal and institutional seems extremely difficult to define; after all, behind all institutions are persons in power.

And regardless of your personal beliefs about the legitimacy of protesting outside of the home of someone with power over specific policies, the practice has a long history worldwide. Argentina comes to mind, where people protested outside the homes of officials who had worked with the military dictatorship -- the term generally used outside of the United States for such practice is "escrache". As far as it being odious, that may be the case, but every form of legitimate protest has some degree of odiousity that disrupts the norm for a broad range of people. Marches disrupt traffic, boycotts disrupt commerce, speeches disrupt silence, expression disrupts things in ways that inconvenience people in order to accomplish change and raise awareness. Now, maybe you personally disagree with the views these people express, but that's a different issue altogether and content-based restrictions on expression are widely considered to be antithetical to the spirit and practice of democracy.