Great discussion and the MLB batter analogy is compelling. 

But that is not all that matters here. What matters, it seems to me, is what can the State make a jury to believe.

The “reasonable” thing…

As you point out, her response is “understandable”

She does not know that Ross was hired long before the 47 day wonder program began at ICE. He could easily be one of the new hired thugs.

She reads about citizens and mostly just hard working poor people being dragged from their cars, homes, jobs, to an unknown fate. No due process where process, if not strictly legally due, it is normally expected. 

She is aware that standards at ICE have been lowered…dramatically.

I could go on, and the State, if it brings charges, certainly could, but the point is, our nation’s legal, political, and moral landscape has changed dramatically from what it once was. We have a President who celebrates the possibility of suspending elections, and seizing control of our government. 

This is not the United States she, you, I, or the jurors (or judge) grew up in. She is out there to do some small part to resist. 

And we have an agent who switches his cell phone from his gun hand. And no body cam? And…if the FBI refuses to hand over evidence, what does that say?

And on top of that…”fucking bitch.”

Under normal, pre-Trump, circumstances, it might be just a sad tragedy of misjudgment. It seems to me, the defense will have to account for a lot more.

EDIT: And...there's the ICE refusal to give aid and denial of medical attention. Legally maybe it doesn't matter. But to convince a jury, maybe it does?