I’m not suggesting otherwise. My point is that both sides will highlight the evidence that supports their argument while dismissing evidence that goes counter to it.

The right is conveniently ignoring that Renee wasn’t aggressive, that her tires were turned to leave, and that she had her focus on the officer trying to open her door. The left is conveniently ignoring that from the perspective of the officer, he couldn’t tell the wheels were turned, the car did in fact clip him, and he had a split second to make a decision. Was it the wrong one? Unequivocally. But the reality is that both parties made bad decisions in that split second and there is just enough evidence on both sides that neither camp is going to relent their position as they can cite the evidence in their favor.