TLDR:
Defense had a legitimate Self Defense claim, and the prosecution did not prove Beyond a reasonable doubt Prong 3. The Lower court should have saw the doubt clearly and unmistakably. Prongs 1 and 2 were also incorrect and egregious factual findings.
The specifics of the case, finding that the kicking is clearly an unprovoked, unjustified threat, from an officer, and the clear establishment of a short time between events was important to this ruling. Officers garner great deference, but this initial assault and lack of articulation about how the bike ride into the hotel wasn't reckless, created too much doubt that any court should have ruled as doubt.
Not all Affirmative Defenses are created equally. Self Defense needs evidence to support it, but the prosecution must then prove it was not self defense beyond a reasonable double. This really is just proving 1 of the 4 prongs beyond a reasonable doubt was not met.
