This is how it will probably go down:
They already pinned second degree battery on the other suspect because he's the one who knocked him unconscious.
From what little we know, it doesn't sound like Hill will be charged with anything greater than simple battery. Only other possibility is second degree battery which requires specific intent to invoke serious bodily injury. Since it sounds like the "victim" doesn't have any serious injuries, and it was the other guy that knocked him unconscious, then it just seems doubtful they'll go past simple battery with Hill. But it's all a matter of interpretation and what they want to infer about his intent from the video. Maybe they make a big deal about the hit in the video being in the back/side of the head, maybe they don't. But it helps that the guy wasn't seriously hurt.
As for his probation, I don't know what the conditions were. I'm sure this would be a violation, so it is up to the judge's discretion of how to handle it. That's where all the speculation about what was said before the fight comes in. None of it justifies Hill's actions, or makes him less guilty, but the judge may consider it when deciding how, or if, Hill will be reprimanded.
Here's the relevant snippets from the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure:
Art. 900. Violation hearing; sanctions
A. …..The hearing may be informal or summary. If the court decides that the defendant has violated, or was about to violate, a condition of his probation it may:
(1) Reprimand and warn the defendant.
(2) Order that supervision be intensified.
(3) Add additional conditions to the probation.
So the court can basically give him a slap on the wrist if they want, or they can go full retard and consider revoking his probation and possible jail time.
D. When a court considers the revocation of probation, the court shall consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the case, including but not limited to the circumstances stated in Article 894.1.
The only real aggravating factor I can think of is the supposed hit from behind. Everything speculated about what happened before goes towards the mitigating factors from 894.1 that they can consider:
B. The following grounds, while not controlling the discretion of the court, shall be accorded weight in its determination of suspension of sentence or probation:
(24) The defendant acted under strong provocation.
(25) There were substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify the defendant's criminal conduct, though failing to establish a defense.
(26) The victim of the defendant's criminal conduct induced or facilitated its commission.
(29) The defendant's criminal conduct was the result of circumstances unlikely to recur.
(33) Any other relevant mitigating circumstance.
So this is why it matters whether or not the "victim" was harassing Hill and calling him N***** and possibly instigating the entire fight.