You don't know what events led up to that officer grabbing her. If I show up a a protest, emotions running high, walking around with a sign and I'm suddenly grabbed from behind... I will attack without identifying who grabbed me. That's not something I should be arrested for. The person grabbing at me unexpectedly is the one who better be prepared for bad things to occur. Now if the officer approached her from the front and identified himself as an officer of the law and attempted to explain why he stopped her then suddenly she elbows him in the face, that's another story.

The idea is to be arrested, and to passively resist that arrest. Go limp, let them drag you. You document any rough treatment you get and sue accordingly.

There is almost no justification for punching an officer and in almost all cases it's going to end badly for the puncher.

Who decides when the police need to be there? How can there be a protest without emotions running high? That's pretty much what a protest is; people who've reached their limit and want change. If whatever they're protesting wasn't so emotionally/physically stressful they probably wouldn't be protesting to begin with.

In this case, the cop felt the need to grab her to keep her from moving. No cop is going to do that without reason. Again, she put herself into that situation, too. That her breast was grabbed is inconsequential. Her article brings it up as if it was intentional or that she had every right to elbow someone in the nose over it. (The video linked to make the action itself questionable but I won't get into that.)

A jury of her peers has found her guilty. Why does this article need to be written as if she were innocent? She wasn't. Why is anyone trying to justify it?

I'd also bet there are far more facts not told in the article that the jury heard but we never will.

Why does this apply to me and not the cop?

>>In this case, the cop felt the need to grab her to keep her from moving. No cop is going to do that without reason.

You're kidding me. Are you not aware of the many examples of excessive force by police? There are apparently plenty of cops that would do that without any reason other than getting off on their power-trips.

Your inability to accept that there are bad cops is frustrating.

Obviously police do sometimes grab people for the wrong reasons.

You are stating that the cop was somehow at fault for grabbing her. Can you state why the cop grabbed her in the first place? I'm sure you don't know but why are you so certain the cop grabbed her for a bad reason? How do you know what happened right before that? Was she warned not to go where she went but she did so anyway? Did the cop see she was getting ready to step on a broken bottle and actually rescued her?

You don't know but you have automatically deduced the cop was in the wrong, despite what the jury said.

This interpretation of events is not one I agree with based on video footage and the other available evidence. He was clearly very violently "pulling her away" to the point that that's not a very honest description of his act.

"You are stating that the cop was somehow at fault for grabbing her."

It does appear that way.

"Can you state why the cop grabbed her in the first place?"

Not definitively, though I'd assume it was some form of poor judgment.

"I'm sure you don't know but why are you so certain the cop grabbed her for a bad reason?"

Why are you so certain the cop was justified in the attack?

"How do you know what happened right before that?"

I don't know, though it doesn't matter. From the evidence and information I have available the cop wasn't justified in the attack regardless.

"Did the cop see she was getting ready to step on a broken bottle and actually rescued her?"

If this is the level of fever-dream required to justify his assault on her, it pretty clearly shows that justifying his attack is very difficult to do.

"You don't know but you have automatically deduced the cop was in the wrong, despite what the jury said."

Yes, we are actually permitted to disagree with juries. Juries have failed in their judgment often enough that it would be naive not to be skeptical. Understanding the basis by which jurors are selected, and the methods used by which prosecutors go about misinforming juries I don't have a lot of confidence in their decisions.

"we are actually permitted to disagree with juries. Juries have failed in their judgment often enough"

So now you want to say the jury and the cop are wrong. Based on what? Though you have none of the information other than what you read in the article, you feel you know more than the jury? I think not.

As a matter of fact, I do know more than the jury. The judge suppressed key evidence in the case. There were photos of the cops abusing her that were never presented, and a slam-dunk photo of the cop grabbing her from behind that the jury was not permitted see, as well as more video that made it very clear how out aggressive and out of line the police behavior was.

I qualify what I say since I don't have a perfect view, only the bits and pieces of evidence that exist. Based on those I am assuming what is most likely, and you are doing just the same, as that's all any of us can do.

One other point I forgot to mention - the judge suppressed key evidence in the case. There were photos of the cops abusing her that were never presented, and a slam-dunk photo of the cop grabbing her from behind that the jury was not permitted see.