I'm Finnish. Both us and Swedes have alcohol monopoly, and had it for a very long time. It works wonders and is a part of preventive measures against alcohol abuse in countries where winter darkness is massive.
It's always discouraging to me when it's foreigners who use the correct word, 'preventive' rather than 'preventative' as many Americans do. Sigh.
Everyone likes accountability when they have control over it. The cops would have control over the tapes, right? So they get to choose which parts to show and which parts to "inconveniently lose."
One small problem with that theory... if they "inconveniently lose" a critical bit of video evidence at trial, the defense would savage them for it, and the jury is likely to let that fact color their decision in a way that is not advantageous to the prosecution.
The Rialto experiment has shown that in all instances where force was used, the cameras were turned on, so the "conveniently lose" scenario isn't borne out by at least one real-world study. I went looking, and couldn't find any mention of whether or not a cop could "lose" a video even if s/he wanted to. The only control mentioned was the ability to turn it on or off, they're mandated to turn it on before encounters with the public, and apparently always do.
The camera itself might be a tiny, tiny fraction of the salary of a cop, but it would still require a massive database and supporting infrastructure to run/maintain the entire implementation. Nor would it change the fact that people would still bring (founded and unfounded) lawsuits against the police.
What if the police got to the scene of a crime after the victim (a black man) managed to turn the tables on the attacker (a white woman) and the only thing the camera saw was the victim (a black man) attacking the attacker (a white woman) in a panicked frenzy? Camera and the police says the victim (a black man) is the attacker, therefore the victim (a black man) gets arrested. Investigation? Why conduct one when the police (partly) caught a black man beating a white woman on camera?
Are you arguing that no data is better than some data? We have that today and look what it's getting us. Even if use of cameras doesn'r solve all problems, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks, IMO. Even in your scenario what would happen without a camera is the cops would testify that they saw it happening and the Black victim would be in the same situation. At least with cameras you remove any subjectivity or outright bias on the cops' part.
You do realize that settlements are basically private contracts right? Are you really saying that I must publicly disclose the terms of any private contract I am a party to, just because the "Public has a right to know"?
No, No, they don't have a right to know. I may allow you to use my intellectual property and by contract disclose it to you for your use, but that doesn't mean everybody in the world is now entitled to see everything.
If one of the entities is a government, the public DOES have the right to know, since it's public funds that are being used to settle.
If Jesse wants to wage the next race war, he should start by getting more black kids interested in STEM and education in general.
Jackson isn't interested in waging race war, he wants to shakedown businesses for money for his organization and those of his cronies. Making it about race is just his form of extortion. Notice that whenever he goes after some company, it's suddenly made all better when it makes a donation to his cause and/or hires one or more people of Jackson's designation. I really admire the way the CEO of Cypress Semiconductor refused to knuckle under to Jackson back in 2001 after Jackson labeled Cypress a "white supremacist hate group.’” I hope every Silicon Valley target of his does the same.
And what exact public law is being broken now?
I'll take a wild guess and say it's illegal to sublet public property without some kind of special permit. I wager that if there is a free open-air concert in the park you can't set out a dozen blankets in a good spot and charge people for the reserved seating. This seems very similar to that.
On the sublet issue: you're not charging them to park there, you're accepting a bribe to incentivize you to leave. I see this as the same as some guy cruising around and offering you a sawbuck to pull out and let him take your spot.