Alright, so I watched the movie. As noted, the movie certainly was expected to have a police point of view to the narrative, given the parties involved, and it didn't disappoint in that regard.
With respect to the evidentiary issues brought up, as far as I can determine all of them were the subject of a ruling by the trial judge, and then reviewed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in its decision. That includes things like the denial of the use of a photo of a training officer appearing to kneel on the neck of a "suspect", arguments that Chauvin couldn't get a fair trial in Minneapolis, and supposed bias of the prosecutors.
I didn't see any film clips, body camera footage or any other evidence that hadn't already been publicly reported in the local media.
I would say the only thing I saw in this movie that I hadn't seen before were the "talking head" interviews created specifically for the movie. I think some were interesting and certainly worth watching. Cops on duty at that time, and during the riots that followed, certainly had a point of view on the events and it was interesting to hear them talk about it. The interviews with the defendant officers themselves, and their family members, were also interesting. I hadn't seen interviews with any of those people before.
Part of the apparent point of the film is to discuss the idea that somehow these cops were a victim of mob justice. Here would be my response to that.
There is no doubt that the tensions and the concerns about violence, and the potential for more riots, the unhappiness with policing, and general outrage over race relations probably colored the decisions of the jury. It would be hard for it not to. We are creatures of our times. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a person was convicted in this country because of concerns about race, about violence, or because of a juror's personal prejudices or feelings.
Yeah, it sucks to be the defendant in those cases, but it happens. The primary question is, did they get a fair trial. I don't think you're entitled to a perfect trial, because I'm not sure that exists. But was it fair, and in this case I think the State of Minnesota afforded these guys a fair trial. Ten years ago would they have been convicted? Unlikely. Ten years from now would they be convicted? I'm not convinced of that either. But they were found guilty when they were tried, and the process was fair.
As for the second point of the movie, an argument that leadership in Minneapolis was incompetent, and probably biased? There is no question that the Mayor, the City Council and the police department were incompetently run, and probably still are, as far as that goes. But even with competent leadership Minneapolis was going to be a s_ _ _ show following Floyd's death, at least for awhile, so I don't know how that point affected the trial of these cops.
