I can't see why they would want to exclude evidence? Unless the video was edited in some way that the "facts" it presented were distorted due to the editing, I can't see why they would not want to know what happened.
Just because a section of video shows something happening, that does not mean that it shows the entire series of events truthfully. Someone could tailgate you dangerously, flash their high beams at you, honk their horn, then switch the camera on and for the few seconds before the crash, show them driving normally and you suddenly braking for no visible reason. Would that show what really happened? Yes, but it was not the whole true story.
If you remember the Rodney King video all you saw was about 2 minutes of him surrounded by Cops who were beating him. What you missed was a dangerous high-speed car chase, being held at gunpoint and resisting commands to prone himself when he stopped in a very high risk gang area of LA. You were never shown that the other guy in the car did what he was told and was arrested without fuss or any injury. You also missed his refusal 14 times to stop resisting and his repeated attampts to get back up on his feet. You also were never told that he had a criminal record for violence and that he later tested positive for illegal drugs...and you were never told that LAPD policy was to do exactly what the Cops did. They were forbidden to even pepper spray him because of a lawsuit, the Taser they used was not effective and they were required to use pain compliance. They had wrestled with him first but he threw them off because of his strength and drug cunsumption. What the video showed on TV was a bunch of racist Cops beating a black "motorist" for no reason. Pictures are important, but context is even more so important.
Last edited by zulutango; 09-09-2012 at 08:03 PM.