Woah, hold your horses!
First, whether or not you are guilty of committing a crime is not based on how admirable a person you generally are. It's not like war veterans get an almighty "Can never commit a crime ever again!"-card to flash to the police whenever they see them. Any such information is entirely irrelevant.
Second, how about we give the policeman the benefit of the doubt here; the article is completely onesided and clearly biased. If you want to assume the role of a judge, which you really have no right to do, you should at least know all the facts before passing judgement.
Third, why don't we just wait for an official verdict before we decide who was in the right on this one? You read one single article on the internet, and suddenly you are wishing bodily harm on someone you don't know anything about whatsoever.
First off, Cops do this sort of thing because of a little thing known as a "quota". And with this quota, the cops must reach a certain limit of tickets, arrests, and other things. To make this quota. When they make this quota, they get a little pay bump, and if they don't make this quota, they sit at their desk and watch while the others get their pay bump.
Now, it's not all that uncommon here in LA, to see cops screwing up the system for their own benefit, (which by reading that article, it seems he was doing.) But you're honestly going to take the side of a cop, who was clearly told the man's wife was having a stroke, and was already crippled and the man didn't have time to talk about some lousy ticket? Cops are always trying to make a quota, and if it involves a red light, they don't care, they'll press it. This cop did, and look what happened, it caused more problems for the cops than the cop probably expected it to do. The cop was in the wrong, article or no article. It's inexcusable to try and arrest someone for a stupid little light violation, when they're in an emergency situation.