It's fair to be skeptical, but not necessarily fair to be suspicious. Your comment falls into the latter category where you are drawing an inference, like so many before you here on Ornery, that because you don't see evidence that leans your way, it must exist and be hidden, and that can only be due to nefarious and dishonest reasons. Hence, the government is lying because we see no evidence that supports your point of view. QED.
Maybe that's what you imagined I said, if it read that way them maybe I should have been clearer.
I don't believe, without actual evidence, that any government official acts other than appropriately. I rationally believe that the majority do their duties with due regard to the way they should. Even in a case like this, I would expect that officers that shot their fire arms did so because they believed there was a threat and not because of other conspiracy style reasons.
However, whether they believe evidence makes them look guilty is a different matter. After the fact, governments, including ours, are notorious for not trusting people to understand the situation with the facts in front of them. They bury and suppress and refuse to release evidence they
believe makes them look guilty, whether it does so or not. So if they release one video and withhold others, there's a lot of logic to assuming they chose to release the one that
makes them look best, and I can't see any logic in assuming they would do otherwise.
Governments are made of people, people do lie, but more significantly here, even if they mean well, they present their cases in ways that make them look better. It's instinctive. The bar is high
in all cases but right now with the string of videos that we've seen the bar is even higher, and the only way to satisfy it is to keep everything above boards and fully disclosed. Anything less may be appropriate from time to time, as there could evidentiary reasons or other reasons for secrecy, but should raise justifiable suspicion.