Not anti-police per se, just anti-authority in that I don't just accept that what authority tells me, particularly when it's in their self-serving interest. I just want a fair, unbiased, and balanced examination and review. One sided, prepared, scripted, testimony that is not subject to cross-examination and query is not adequate or even newsworthy(does that make me anti-newspaper as well?). Indeed, I grow more suspicious the more I see this type of one-sided narrative being offered as the truth, when it's only a version of the truth, offered without rebuttal or challenge (other than my own, doing the Kent Reporter's work). The ride along seems to me to simply agree with the suggestion from the police conducting the video re-enactment (a tried and true police interrogation method to get someone to say what they want them to say), being led in their testimony instead of just getting a simple narrative from them of what happened in "their own words".