Just to clarify, these were ticket inspectors, i.e. employees of the rail system, not officers, nor security. They do not carry weapons.
As part of my larger context, what I perceive is that Australia has empowered civilians with some kind of authority over its population. In this case, the claim is that inspectors have been granted the task of ensuring transit riders abide by the obligations of the rail system. Implied in this task is some authority to apply control over individuals who are not compliant; as a obligation of riding, individuals subject themselves to the authority of the inspectors. Maybe its arrest, maybe its fines, maybe its loss of privileges. The issue is that a rider did not abide by the obligations of the rail system (i.e. did not pay for a ticket) and rejected the civil authority tasked with enforcing the obligations of the relationship. If what you are saying is true, the fact that she chose her course of action against an unarmed, non-security oriented inspector indicates to me that she was taking advantage of the system.
At a base level, assaulting these authorities represents a rejection of the system. Inherent in the assault is the risk of serious injury, elevated by the presence of items that increase risk of injury. The [lack] of weapons carried by the inspectors only [theoretically] reduces the risk of serious injury to any parties involved in an assault. My comments were aimed at the observation that it was permissible to assault the inspector(s) because they represented an outlet upon which to express frustration at the rail system. Armed, unarmed, whatever. I think it is interesting that we are willing to give this young lady a pass for behavior that committed by someone else may not have been easily forgiven.
Like an American football fan... (i.e. real football). I mean, collared shirts in a sport? (Just kidding, you rugby people are crazy).