[isbjorn16]

> Not only are you not given the context, but you're only given one side of the story. I'm sure if you asked the police what happened, their story would be completely different. But you're only being allowed to get the story from one side, and that side is insanely politically motivated to exaggerate, and do everything they can to make the police look bad, because it strengths their political positions.

Is that... is that not exactly, precisely, what we should be expecting from the police side as well? I think that's the entire point, isn't it? At best, their credibility has been called into question. At worst, their credibility has been drug out into the street and kneeled on until it expired.

[imajoo]

I would expect no less from police, however, these days some "news" seems to be taking select information with no context, or out of context, and then using it to push a certain narrative. I think the point being that we should seek the truth (maybe the wrong word here..) no matter what the source.

[rootusrootus]

I recall reading that some localities have already made changes to their body camera recording rules which rule video footage inadmissible if it has been edited to remove context.

[SpelingBeeChamp]

I don't buy it. It is unlikely that the rules of evidence are being changed. I could always be wrong, though. Got a source?

[rootusrootus]

Sorry, I was a little unclear in that post and probably made it sound more legal (as in, courtroom) than I intended. What I meant is that some police departments have announced that they will not allow edited or out-of-context footage from body cams by police officers facing administrative action. You're right in that courtroom rules of evidence are not subject to such decrees.