Lei me be clear, I won't.
Proving the men were violent, acted like scumbags, grabbed for weapons, unprovoked walked up to the officer and broke her nose has absolutely no bearing on my opinion on what the officer did to the man on the ground.
They are almost completely irrelevant to me.
I am not basing my position on the men arrested being innocent or pure of the driven snow, so it is not in anyway a premise of how I view the actions of the officer that I will have to walk back on.
The officer acted out of anger and wanting to inflict pain, not out of safety or deescalation or self defence. He was channeling connery in the untouchables. And it may be understandable, and it may be relatable if you've seen someone close to you subjected to violence but it's illegal and excessive use of force when the threat has been neutralised.
If I was attacked unprovoked with a bat and suffered a broken nose, and the police arrived and arrested him. If I walked over when they had him pinned on the ground and asked if I could maybe boot him full force in the jaw and then stamp on the back of his head they wouldn't shrug and go "yeah, seems about right" they'd tell me that while they'd like to let me they'd then have to arrest be because they know it would be illegal.