The correct answer is: (B) Guilty, because the shopkeeper tried to spit on the passenger.

Battery is defined as using force to cause bodily harm or an offensive touching. Assault is commonly defined as an attempt to commit battery. There need not be any actual attempt to cause pain or injury. Here, the shopkeeper's act of spitting at the passenger was an attempt to cause an offensive touching and that is sufficient. As such, the shopkeeper is guilty of assault.

(A) Incorrect. Guilty, because the shopkeeper committed battery.

Although the shopkeeper did commit battery, he committed battery against the driver, not against the passenger. As such, the shopkeeper's battery is irrelevant as to the crime of assault that he committed against the passenger.

(C) Incorrect. Not guilty, because the shopkeeper was exercising his right to protest.

The right to protest does not extend to committing criminal acts against another person. As such, the shopkeeper is not relieved of criminal liability merely because he was exercising his right to protest.

(D) Incorrect. Not guilty, because the shopkeeper did not physically threaten the passenger.

In order to be guilty of assault, the defendant need not physically threaten a victim. Battery is defined as using force to cause bodily harm or an offensive touching, and assault is commonly defined as an attempt to commit battery. As such, a mere attempt to commit an offensive touching would be sufficient for the crime of assault. Hence, the shopkeeper is guilty of assault, because he attempted to cause an offensive touching by spitting on the passenger.