Say; you wouldn’t be able to go to “street view” and see the arrangement of the lights would you? Would you be lucky enough to show your light was green while the one on the opposite side is red?
You are incorrect. You have been incorrect in this assumption from the beginning. It shows you do not understand the laws of evidence, or the burden of proof.
If failure to actually witness what color the light was on his side was sufficient to preclude a finding of guilt, then no crime that was unwitnessed could ever be prosecuted. We both know this is untrue. It’s called inductive reasoning, and you might want to bone up on it before you offer any more opinions of fact about the burden of proof in legal cases.
The burden of proof in Florida traffic cases is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/jun/14/special-report-e-mail-hints-collier-traffic-judges/
Since the OP is in Arizona, this issue is moot, but don’t tell me I’m wrong on the burden of proof when I’m not…
In this vein, go time how long the light is yellow for and how long it takes you to clear the intersection at the lowest legal speed. That is a huge intersection, so it had better have an extra long yellow light. If it’s a 4 second yellow light, the intersection is 50 meters long (from the picture, it’s at least that) and you’re driving 27mph, it’s possible for you to enter the intersection with a green and have it turn yellow and then red before you clear it, which is just downright unfair.
Now that’s an interesting defence: “Yes, I ran the light; the police car was so close behind me that I deemed it not safe to stop.” 
With regard to the issue of the time the light stays green, my search-fu is lacking, but there was a recent case, I believe here in the U.K., where the defendant showed that the time period was unreasonably short.