Justice is in the rear-view mirror. The times are to look forward.

Interesting.

Did he "cop a feel" or did he grapple someone and wind up grabbing her breast?

That is, is it fairly clear that it was deliberate?

...and that his hand was on her breast...that hasn't been denied especially looking at the evidence of the bruising the polite intelligent gentleman caused on her person...

At worst this should have been a case perhaps of resisting arrest, but assault on the person that had her on handcuffs is beyond stupid...

Accidental grab in the pursuit of restraining a person resisting arrest, which isnt coping a feel, or sexual assault as one claims.

One thing is clear...this case isnt cut or dry, and we dont have all of the info that the jury saw.

a tooth fairy, but probably not.

Remember, she didnt use the video in her defense. She deserves time, but not 7 years

Watched the video several times... even in zoom and slow motion from other videos on YT. Personally, other than seeing her crouch down and then jump up throwing her elbow back I couldn't tell what the hell happened. i don't know if this was the same video that the jury saw or if they saw a cleaned up version or frame by frame or what, but clearly they didn't see her breast being grabbed or any of her being grabbed.

I also find it interesting that it was the prosecution that brought in the video evidence and the defense that argued that it was too unclear to tell what what happened in the video. If the defense believed that the video evidence showed her to be innocent then why was it that they didn't bring it in themselves and argued against it as too unclear to see what happened?

The still frame used in the OP's video as the "billboard" to show what the video is doesn't come from the video that was shown in the video in the OP.. That still frame is much much more clear, taken from a different angle and much much more close up. What video was it then that the jury saw? That still frame shows her running from the officer while the officer has his arm out with his hand in a grabbing position with his palm parallel to the ground that shows he was attempting to grab her head or shoulder in a downward motion. If he was aiming for her breast his arm would be much lower with his hand in a perpendicular position to the ground to wrap his arm around her chest area in order to grab her breast. What that one still frame (or possibly a single photo) shows with the position of his arm is that he likely did grab her by putting his hand on her shoulder not wrapping his arm around to the front of her body to grab her breast.

As I understand it is that when she hit the ground one of her arms was trapped beneath her body, so I have to wonder of the possibility that it was her own hand that made the mark above her breast as she hit the ground. That makes more sense to me just by the severity of the bruising... it would take a much harder impact to cause that bad of a bruise than just his hand grabbing at her breast. The bruise is also above her breast, not on her breast, so I'm not seeing that it was the officer's intention to grab her breast at all. It doesn't even make sense for an officer to try to stop a running person by throwing their arm around them and grabbing them in the front of their body. They'd have to be right up against their back with the person's running legs tangling up with their own running legs. This one still frame or single photo not from that video shows something entirely different than what she said occurred. It shows her already running from this officer with a scared look on her face with him reaching out his arm to grab her shoulder not that she was suddenly grabbed from behind with an arm going around the front of her to grab her breast while peacefully walking along.

I still can't tell from the video being passed around whether she belted him with her elbow before he grabbed her or not, and that still picture shows something very different then what her attorney has been claiming. I'd still like to know where that picture comes from... if from another video I'd like to see that one rather than the blurry mess that I just can't tell much of anything in, and what video the jury was actually shown or whether they saw one that was cleaned up or frame by frame or what. Clearly they all saw something and in a short time that they believed made her guilty.

I did find it surprising that she claimed all kinds of injuries to her body in the DN interview but never said anything about her neck or head when supposedly this seizure or whatever it was made her head bang on the ground or a hit on the head when she was thrown on the ground caused the seizure or what. Surely she should have had at least tenderness and a bump or few there. Was the seizure from epilepsy or a blow to the head or was it even all fake? It doesn't make sense to me that with other video of her head bobbing up and down supposedly striking the ground hard during a seizure that she'd not complain of any head injury in that interview.

What I'd REALLY like to see is the whole trial. I'd like to see if the defense just didn't do a good job or the demeanor of the witnesses during testimony, what the questioning was, how the law applied, etc. I'd also like to see medical records or doctor's testimony from her hospital visit if there was any.

If it does, the jury should have seen it. They would better understand why she threw a "wicked elbow."

FWIW: Her reaction is not quite instinctual. For self-defense, when attacked from behind, don't waste time. Strike the attacker immediately and get away.

(see First Amendment), she was manhandled by a group of officers & grabbed forcefully on her breast (leaving bruises). A woman's breasts are just as sensitive as a man's testicles. Here is a man using his uniform to justify roughing up a woman because he enjoys the power he has over civilians. When she elbowed back out of instinct, she gave them what they wanted. The police were there to cause trouble, not to diffuse it.

Why didn't Cliven Bundy's militia team get treated this way?

She claims to be a pacifist yet she elbowed a cop? Then she supposedly had a seizure? Then she supposedly needed to be treated for PTSD? Come on, it sounds like a child who keeps coming up with excuses.

And everyone on the jury happens to side with the prosecution?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

on evidence at the trial. I don't know if you are talking about another video...but, the bruises verify that she was grabbed harshly enough to cause bruising.

In the video I watched she is running or skipping along and then lunges at an officer, elbowing him in the face. Presumably she was then taken down and bruised, but it did not look as if anyone had touched her prior to this.

You can share your opinion of the verdict with the jury, but how do you know their opinion on whether she was grabbed first?

She was clearly touched by the cop before she elbowed him. The jury could have found her action was too excessive for proper self-defense. I don't know what the jury instructions are that were given. Do you?

He raised the ONLY piece of exculpatory 'evidence' she had to offer. In any case, unless someone comes up with a new and significantly better tape that might justify a pardon, this girl is going to prison. Which is a shame, because she was one of the few folks there with the guts to actually DO SOMETHING. Unfortunately, her comrades did not share her enthusiasm, so here we are.

or a weekend of prison time. Hopefully, he will exercise his discretion.