Your saying the media and thus we are making assumptions, seeing facts that aren't there and not aware of facts that might be within the minds of the accused (not convicts until they have been "convicted"). I'm sorry but your own argument show's your desire to add facts that aren't there. You say that the victim was "under the influence." That is a legal conclusion, and one you cannot make with any degree of certainty from this video. You can't even be certain the drink he is holding contains alcohol. You are saying we are hearing the story from the officer. Actually the evidence in the video, namely the statement that the officer isn't saying much, other than he is recovering, goes directly against your assertion of fact.
Other than the victims dedication to his community by choosing a dangerous and exhausting line of work, his position as a police officer is completely irrelevant to the crime, and hence the charge was assault, not Assault on an LEO.
It's my opinion, based on your statements, it is you who are seeing this from one side, namely your own, in which you obviously have a grudge with the police.
What the video DOES show is that two men appear to coordinate, then walk up to this other man, effect an assault on him, then assault him once he is on the ground and possible unconscious. Those are the facts we have!
More information about formatting options