Individual cases notwithstanding (I think I could find ones where civilians used their cameras to save their lives), I think there’s a hefty dose of irony involved in citing video evidence of misbehavior to defend a law that would, in effect, prevent us from evaluating said behavior.

In other words: you can link these because people recorded them. We then get to have a discussion about it. The application of this law would eliminate that, in many cases.

Edit: I noticed that all of these videos are collections by the same guy. He’s a former cop and seems to relish in videos of the police cracking down on protestors, which makes me think that he’s unlikely to present a balanced view of how disruptive recording actually is, on average.