The first article explains that the footage was not edited; the audio data simply wasn't being recorded until after the officer pressed the record button (the first 30 seconds were from a buffer with no audio).
And no, it's not a silly excuse. Just because current policy in some departments allows one potential witness's testimony (the officer's) to be tainted for procedural reasons (ensuring accuracy of the police report), doesn't mean we need to risk the same thing happening with _all_ witnesses. That's a ridiculous argument.
And no, it's not a silly excuse. Just because current policy in some departments allows one potential witness's testimony (the officer's) to be tainted for procedural reasons (ensuring accuracy of the police report), doesn't mean we need to risk the same thing happening with _all_ witnesses. That's a ridiculous argument.