Your eyes matter. Videos matter. It's just, they aren't the only things you should factor in. Why have ears, if sight alone is enough? Why have touch, if sight alone is enough?
What you are saying is, trust your eyes alone! Pay no attention to what you can touch or what people involved might have to say. That is the final and most essential command.
It goes both ways. With your eyes that you trust so much, hopefully you can see at least that.
7 different video angles or 7000 different video angles doesn't really change this. What will matter is the testimony of the people combined with the evidence that exists. They'll have to go over the full timeline of events with radio chatter, officer testimony, testimony of activists, make assessments of who are being the most credible and objective observers, look into these claims about a gun misfiring and so on.
There is no version of this where nobody made mistakes and mistakes don't mean someone should have to die, but laws exist for a reason and you don't know what each person was experiencing simply after watching a video.
Video evidence does not generally have infinite credibility in court, because it is often a limited perspective on the reality of what happened. The cameras can only catch sound waves and photons, but almost the majority of everything important that occurred is invisible. If the audio had much value, all the whistles ruined some of that. It may even turn out that the whistles contributed to this death, because it weakened officer communication. Maybe there could be a justification for involuntary manslaughter by people blowing whistles if they were blowing them precisely with intentions like that. I don't know.
We just don't know and claiming these videos show everything you will ever need to know is simply logically false.
Your response strains credulity and suggests complicity. If you tell me an investigation is necessary to prove he is a criminal, perhaps that makes sense. But here you are saying an investigation is needed to prove he should not have been murdered in cold blood. That's bloody nuts. Investigations matter, but there's a point where the burden of proof switches sides. In this case, there would need to be incontrovertible evidence that this man was secretly building a bomb, and even that does not justify execution on the street. Do you understand how this country works, or are you a foreigner? Perhaps where you live, one is not innocent until proven guilty. That might explain your inability to come to judgments, you believe the man murdered must prove he was not a terrorist.
I think you're confused. Someone died. They contributed to their own death with their actions as did many other factors. It was an unnecessary death that could have been avoided. The officers might have made mistakes as well.
You weren't in Alex's head. You weren't in the officer's head. All you know is what you think you know, but aren't even sure you can know it. That is what investigation is for.
You keep using words like murder despite there not being sufficient evidence for that.
Alex broke many federal laws, spit at officers, laid hands on them, attacked their vehicles and broke their tail lights while they were in the vehicles and so on.
I do not know what kind of person Alex was when he was being civil in his own life, but in his most public representation he has shown himself to be an unhinged criminal. Maybe he thought his criminal behavior was justified, but that is a separate matter. It also doesn't mean he deserved to die.
Acting that way though, makes it a lot easier to make the case that officers believed he was a credible threat to their lives in a court case. It doesn't even only have to be valid in court, it could have legitimately been true in that recorded moment that in all of the chaos and with this guy's crazy behavior, they really believed he might have had another weapon and would have used it.
Don't get manipulated into using words like complicit to try to divide the country.
Ahh, now it's clear. He was a boy scout and a choir boy and an ER nurse. A truly good person. But somehow he was an "unhinged criminal" trying to protect a woman. According to who? ICE? Kristi Noem? Liars and fascists, my friend. Take a look in the mirror and then read "Common Sense" to educate yourself about why this country was founded, and what it means to be an American, because you seem lost.
Dude. My dude. Seven different angles. There's no mistaking what happened. You would trust the judgment of someone else when there's that much contrary evidence to what they are claiming? Do you not make your own judgments in your life?