Is it true though? I saw police actions that looked bad on video, but having been on the scene earlier that day I knew the context that cast it in a very different light. And yet no counter-evidence was published. They did not clear their name, despite being in the right (or much more right than the video shown).
Yes, they do have a lot of tools to clear their name. We've seen quite a few occasions where various departments have provided body-cam or dash cam footage showing that force was indeed justified. Generally speaking when they have provided that footage, it's muted the reactions to specific events.
> I saw police actions that looked bad on video
You'd have to ask the respective agencies why they haven't shared any body-cam footage which might exonerate them.
Witness accounts: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gwa2ub/seattle_pol...
I was there earlier and I saw a scared resident trying to drive home through that gate. A protester right next to me made a snide remark about the "expensive" car and proposed blocking the gate. The gate was not blocked that time, but given the video they did it later for some other vehicle.
Two things I conclude from this:
1. The police do not necessarily publish exculpating evidence for their own actions.
2. You wouldn't know what happened if you were not there.
This latter point I cannot emphasize enough - I was there often and last Thursday I realized that one can make/edit enough material to support any point of view.
Their actions police here are openly antagonistic, even with the context you've given.
I can't hear what the police are saying to the protesters, can you?
That's context.
The police actions appear mildly questionable, I'll give you that. But we lack context to understand what happened here.
The problem here is that both sides are defensive of themselves. This is precisely why understanding context and nuance is important, because each is incentivized to favor their own viewpoint.
Context which justifies the police's actions.