If you have a choice as to whether to accept something as payment for a debt, that is by definition no longer legal tender.
AIUI generaly cash transactions in a store do not involve a debt to the store and therefore legal tender is not directly relevant.
Yes, exactly. You must take possession, or consume, a good or service before paying to incur a debt, and only then does the distinction of legal tender come into play.
Say you are buying a sandwich at some place like Subway. You don't take possession of the goods until after you have handed over your money (even though you might be holding it in your hands), so there is never any debt, so they are free to refuse $100 bills (which a lot of shops did before the 100 was updated to the 2001 "Canadian Journey" series).
Now in a restaurant where you sit down and eat before paying, there a debt is incurred, and they cannot refuse legal tender without absolving you of your debt. Note however that the law does not obligate them to make change!
Problem with these cameras of course, bad officers will soon learn to strike out of camera view with fist and truncheon to escalate violence, whilst their partner 'looks' the other way and then deny it with 'proof' of video. Much like DNA evidence, better not get too wrapped into what the camera 'sees' unless they go with a fish eye lens and high resolution so they can extract the scene they are after.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Photos and video are incredibly powerful and persuasive. Even without doctoring them, they can be tremendously misleading. Present a video in court and a jury will believe that if something is not in the video IT DID NOT HAPPEN. If someone doesn't believe that they can be misled with unaltered photos and video, they are a fool. It happens every day in the news we read and watch.
The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and to watch someone else doing it wrong, without commenting. -- T.H. White