I agree that short videos can be misleading. But I think it's wrong to say that we're only allowed to get one side of the story, because some media outlets are focusing heavily on riot/looting/destruction of property (and essentially not covering the protests when they are completely peaceful).

Another point is that protesters feel the police should not be using these amounts of force at all.

I think what this boils down to is that it is evidence of use of force. If this was a courtroom, it would be up to to the defence/prosecution to argue each side, and provide whatever missing context would affect the judge/jurors decision.

Like anything in the 'court of public opinion', it doesn't work like that. Police departments (and city/local governments) are free to put out statements defending their actions as well.

Ideally, the person(s) maintaining this repository would respond to extra gathered evidence/context and remove any links where the context determines something else is happening. That would further strengthen their arguements, as it removes arguments of "well that one doesn't was `justified`, so maybe they all are".

But in general, I have to say that any individual has no responsibility to provide 'both sides' of the argument. The police almost always say their use of force is justified, so they're not the unbiased party either.