Why can cops use a dashcam, and film suspects without any legal challenge, even in states that require 2 party consent? Police officers also carry microphones in which they can record an arrest - and this is perfectly legal.
I fail to see where any state Constitution grants Police rights to record the common citizen, but are immune from recordings taken by the common citizen (ie. victims). I must have missed the section where it says that a passive observer, who records police activity is in any way interfering with the police in performing their duty.
1. Selective filming
2. Editing and timing.
It is quite possible that the filming witness comes upon the arrest scene after the arrestee's violence has been damped down, but resistance continues. E.G., Rodney King. In effect, this edits out the cops' side of the story. Had Rodney's impromptu cinematographer filmed the first few minutes of the encounter, or had the MSM published Rodney's rap sheet, perhaps he would not have become a black folk hero.
At the same time, citizens have the right to record whatever the hell they want to record of public officials performing public duties. The coppers running the street filmers down, and destroying their property just ain't right ... or legal.
Solution: the cops are just going to have to do a better job of recording their work. Perfect assignment for one of the female Affirmative Action nincompoops now infesting every department in the land.
Perspective. Also remember, that given the present court system and political correctness, that beating that a perp however wrongly receives is very apt to be the ONLY punishment the SOB is ever going to get. Feel sorry for them, just not THAT sorry.
Tough situation all around. Perhaps after a particularly rough bust, the cops ought to call for civilian volunteers to give nasty perps the flogging they so richly deserve. Film that.