Its not as if there's a governmental right to spontaneous violence. It's not even a 'right'. It's entwined in the governmental role to enforce laws for the protection of the community and public safety, during which harm may be used to obtain these aims. While this harm is supposed to be used sparingly and judiciously, the human nature of exacting justice can lead to excess and abuse. Unless evidence is presented to the contrary, the enforcing officers are protected with the 'qualified immunity' legal doctrine (aka 'a-few-bad-apples'). Its an unfortunate side effect of a mix of: police culture, training, and popular culture. At least in the George Floyd example, accountability was levied.
Corporations act with probably the most impunity of all. They are beneficially and popularly thought of as job providers (until they choose to layoff). When they abuse their function in their yearn for profit, they offer nothing to imprison criminally and can only offer financial compensation -- if they haven't walled off their finances and declared bankruptcy for the guilty self. (Thinking of J&J & the talcum powder case.) In the Purdue Pharma/Sackler case, they paid only what they agreed to pay and many thought they got off easy, since none of Sacklers were even charged criminally.
Corporations act with probably the most impunity of all. They are beneficially and popularly thought of as job providers (until they choose to layoff). When they abuse their function in their yearn for profit, they offer nothing to imprison criminally and can only offer financial compensation -- if they haven't walled off their finances and declared bankruptcy for the guilty self. (Thinking of J&J & the talcum powder case.) In the Purdue Pharma/Sackler case, they paid only what they agreed to pay and many thought they got off easy, since none of Sacklers were even charged criminally.
Who has it easier?