1. Do you see any reason why the USA, or any country for that matter should not be able to reduce police killings to the level of Denmark or Switzerland on a per capita basis? If we simplify it by saying that Denmark has one killing a year, then the USA should be able to attain 56 per year, since it has approximately 56 times the population. Is there any reason why the US cannot do that?
I can imagine there may be quite a few differences between both, but yes, the US should try to get to that level in the long run. Right now it's not as bad as Brazil or Venezuela, just a bit better than Uruguay and just a tad worse than Iraq (there's probably some underreporting going on there).
Pants-of-dog wrote:2. So, no, you cannot think of cops that are not being monitored by cops. I have no idea how you can then go on to say that they are “effectively being monitored” after accepting that.
That's because it's a bit of a red herring: The issue is balancing prosecutorial discretion, monitoring is something that is more less straightforward if bodycam footage is stored in 3rd party (e.g. State-owned) servers.
Pants-of-dog wrote:To reiterate:
Cops do not hold cops accountable. In fact, they routinely get rid of cops who try to do so.
Police unions do not hold police accountable. In fact, they openly champion that murderers caught on film be rehired.
DAs do not hold police accountable. Only one DA ever lost his job over racist police brutality in the history of the USA.
Bodycams do not hold police accountable since they are being monitored by cops or DAs. And police can turn them off or “drop” them with impunity.
So, how exactly are police “effectively being monitored”?
I've addressed all those claims already, but just to add: How did we come to find out about George Floyd's killing?