It strikes me that body cameras might not show much. Chest or shoulder mounted cameras in an altercation might be too close and just show blurred scuffling or even black screen if pressed against body parts or clothing. Ear mount?
I do think it might be good protection for officers to have a miniature Blutooth wide-angle video and sound camera mounted on their firearms, possibly built into their laser sights—they make them small enough now—that activates automatically whenever the gun is withdrawn from the holster and records to a secure remote digital system—preferably away from the patrol car—until it is replaced into the holster.
That way the officer has an complete record to show that the shoot is a righteous shoot. No quibbling about "was he charging and attacking, or running away, standing, or kneeling with his hands in the air when shot ever again!" You would not be placed in the limbo of "he said, but the perp/witness/anyone else said" after the fact. The recording would tell the unvarnished truth, good or bad.
>>that activates automatically whenever the gun is withdrawn from the holster and records to a secure remote digital system—preferably away from the patrol car—until it is replaced into the holster. <<
I want to see why the cop thought it was necessary to withdraw his weapon from his holster. That is what needs to be shown, not the shooting.