I can't believe you're asking that question seriously. It's a stark admission that you don't give a damn about the finding out the facts -- which, btw, you haven't got yet. You've got your mind made up already.
She was forcibly stripped by a group of male and female cops.
And Rodney King was repeatedly struck by nightstick-wielding cops. Ghastly stuff. Those cops were thugs doing thuggish stuff ... right?
Oh, wait. A few things happened before the Rodney King video, didn't they? And the video you saw on TV was truncated, too. Hmmmm. It turns out that the context of the Rodney King case was much less friendly to him than what was reported on TV.
So. What does context have to do with this case? Are you kidding? You think they did it for no reason at all?
It's entirely possible that their actions were unjustified. Or it MAY be that the true facts of the case will make their actions much more understandable.
One of the reasons we don’t have the early “context” is that the deputies who went to the scene either didn’t turn on their car cam or the department is hiding the tape. Both are further violations of policy.
Well, yes. I believe that's probably why the main thug cops in the beating got a couple years. Why do you keep bringing up this lame example? Do you forget the outcome of the cops being sent to federal prison?