The problem is you are using exceptions to the accuracy of a single instance of video to poison the well against all video evidence, and suggest that there *must* inherently be something the video doesn't show that exculpates the cop even though the preponderance of what is shown makes him look very much in the wrong.
Yes, videos may not always tell 100% of the story. But by and large they come pretty damn close. And barring a good and factually evidenced reason to doubt it, we should trust a video that shows 95% of the story over the unsupported and biased word of the very same cop it implicates and who therefore has a personal stake in questioning its accuracy.
There were eyewitnesses that testified. If you believe, as the other poster does, that viewing a video makes you an accurate eyewitness then no truth or facts will get through.
I won't respond again.