Releasing the video after the arraignment is perfectly normal and in no way implies anything underhanded or suspicious on the part of the church. Clearly no video was trained on the couple when the "kiss" was taking place. The security personnel are already in place speaking with the couple when the footage moves in on them.
From the video a couple things are clear. First, the security personnel is clearly giving the couple the option to settle down or leave. Their detainment doesn't take place until 36 seconds into the footage, which began an indeterminate amount of time after the initial confrontation. (Many think Aune reaches out to push the officer right before he is detained, but it seems to me he is pointing in another direction and the parallax view makes it seem he's jabbing him in the chest.) Jones' statement asserts that additional security personnel was showing up in the middle of the argument, which would put the footage at the tail end of it, since no additional officers show up.
Second, the story about being thrown to the ground seems untenable. This is Jones' statement:
At this point they then split us up and forced me onto the ground on my stomach.
The two were not "split up," they ran from the security officers and split themselves up. The video follows the taller of the two men as he attempts to escape, but as it does, the other (light shirt) can be seen trying to lunge away from the security officer, which causes him to fall on the ground. While I find it difficult to believe he actually thought he was being forced to the ground, I suppose it's possible. The security officer, however, clearly did not force him to the ground.
I don't find anything in the video that patricularly supports Jones' statement against the church's and the police report. It bothers me that the prosecutor stated that he dropped the case because the area wasn't clearly marked. He either wasn't aware that Aune claimed himself to have been a vocal opponent of the transfer of proprietorship in 2003 (making it highly unlikely that his belligerent refusal to leave was based on anything other than a conscious attempt to protest that proprietorship), or he decided to ignore that fact. He appears rather to have wanted to distance himself from the controversy, which will only feed the dishonesty and the self-righteous indignation of those who still believe the couple was at all innocent or honest about what happened. The church and its members will now unjustly be ridiculed for doing absolutely nothing wrong, but the impression I get from the prosecutor is that he's perfectly happy with that outcome.