I did suffer through that whole, biased video, for your benefit. My first conclusion seems to be justified.
How many times does he say it's "unprovoked violence"? But the problem is, the videos all start mid-arrest (also, mid-resisting arrest). Maybe that dude punched a cop straight in the face, before it started? Probably not, but that video gives us no idea what happened to start the whole thing. You could video literally ANY video of a cop arresting someone half-way through, and claim it's police brutality. They would all look very similar to these. Unfortunately, claiming police brutality doesn't make it so.
That theme continues through every video snippet. The video starts in the midst of violence between police and protesters, then the douche hosting says "There was no provocation". The problem is, we didn't see the incidents start, or what the provocation may or may not have been.
It also kind of pisses me off that they kept comparing it to Rodney King. Nothing any of those videos showed was remotely similar. Pepper spray aside, every video showed the police arresting someone who was resisting. It wasn't the police circling some guy and taking turns beating him down. It showed them wrestling people to the ground and putting them in cuffs.
People want to assume that every time there is violence between protesters and police, the police are the ones that provoked it. I suppose I'm not that jaded. Does it happen? I'm sure it does, but it's just as likely (honestly, much MORE likely) that the violence was provoked by the protesters themselves. Until I see actual proof, then that won't change.
Maybe these people were targeted unjustly. It's entirely possible. But what do you do when the police try to arrest you for a crime you're innocent of? You don't fucking fight back. You let them put handcuffs on you, and you fight it legally. You're a lawyer, aren't you? Do you disagree with that much, too?