Civis was contemplating this in the wake of the shooting of Minneapolis woman Renee Good by an Ice (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officer.
How we perceive what happened has parallels in contentious refereeing in sport. Professional adjudicators’ decisions still sometimes cause controversy, even though they might be armed with slow-motion replays.
Fundamentally, bias colours our judgement. We see what we want to see. We perceive what serves our interests and those of our tribe.
At one extreme, Ms Good was murdered and executed. The evidence, some say, is clear: the videos show a woman being harassed by masked, armed men as she tried to drive away, before one officer shot her three times.
At the other extreme, Ms Good was wielding a potentially lethal weapon in the form of a large vehicle. She had been blocking the road and refused instructions to exit her car. She then drove at and struck an officer, who acted in self-defence.
President Donald Trump’s version can be dismissed because he routinely describes black as white and vice-versa, untroubled by contradiction. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, meanwhile, did not hesitate to label the incident "an act of domestic terrorism" by Ms Good.
Many Trump supporters will accept her version. At the very least, they will embrace the self-defence argument.
That is how they "read" the videos. The officer is struck, so he reacts. Law enforcement, they argue, must be respected and supported.
Naturally, a stack of questions follows. Why was the officer circling the car? Was there even a minor bump? What was the woman meant to do as officers shouted contradictory instructions? Which way was she trying to turn her wheels? And, regardless, what could possibly justify shooting her in the face?
The videos might also support a reading in which events slipped quickly out of control and the officer panicked. While that could never justify the shooting, this middle-ground interpretation is largely drowned out by passion and division.
Alarmingly, Mr Trump said this week that "at a very minimum, that woman was very, very disrespectful to law enforcement". Civis, biased like everyone else, finds that comment chilling.
If disrespecting law enforcement warrants being shot and killed, what does that say? The contrasts with the January 6 insurrection and the pardoning of the perpetrators are stark. Mr Trump’s staggering hypocrisy was also on display when he said "one death is too much" in Iran.
***
You see the same dynamic in football with red cards or penalties. Supporters howl about the decision, recounting events with their partisan eye patch firmly in place.
The TMO (Television Match Official) in rugby is responsible for clarifying critical decisions. Yet calls on foul play or whether the ball was grounded for a try can still be viewed in utterly different ways by opposing supporters.
In the final Ashes cricket test against England, an Australian batsman was given not out for a caught behind despite only a "murmur" not a clear "spike" on the technology as the ball passed the end of his bat. No prizes for guessing which supporters took which side.
We watch the same footage yet tell ourselves completely different stories about what occurred. Our realities simply do not align.
***
What happens when we try to view the Minneapolis footage without the polarising pull of being strongly pro or anti-Trump? Do different angles and emphases emerge?
Yes.
Nevertheless, these fail to justify the horrific killing. Civis, even from half a world away, is disturbed and outraged.
Sadly — and worryingly, the descent of the United States continues.
