What do we want police body cams to do?

Police body cams should be mandatory on all local, state, and federal law enforcement. This is not only to hold those rogue elements accountable, but it is also for the protection of the police when false narratives are spread (like the false narrative that was perpetuated regarding Michael Brown*).

Access to body cam footage should be available to an independent organization that has been vetted and is held to higher standards to protect against "leaks" or through standardized rules (like the ones DC passed) that will try to strike the balance between releasing information of public interest and that which will be used improperly. Release of body cam footage comes in a proper method (such as approval though the courts) and any single points of failure need to be addressed.

Body cams will not solve all issues. There will be instances where an officer's or suspect's actions won't be recorded because they aren't in the field of view of the camera and there will be instances were the actions are captured but left up to broad interpretation because they aren't clear. However, for many of the police/public interactions, a lot of it will be reasonably documented.

If so, hopefully the next time a "Tyre Nichols" or a "Michael Brown" happens something will be there to show the correct narrative - not the one that got there first or is the loudest.

As a side note, I found the article mostly factual and unbiased, but there was definitely a lean towards "cops are bad and hide the truth". You can even explicitly see in the opening paragraph, "Not even the Memphis police chief could dismiss the video footage of 29-year-old Tyre Nichols being fatally beaten by cops in early January" which implies that the Memphis police chief was trying to, or would be inclined to, cover it up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

I've used bodycams and before that, used cameras mounted inside vehicles. They can be useful, but most people don't seem to understand the limitations of the technology or understand that police officers are human and make human mistakes.
Most police systems do not allow the officer to tamper with the video. The systems I was involved in involved the video being uploaded to the cloud. The officer was able to view the video to refresh their memory when writing a report or preparing for court.

1) bodycams are usually mounted in the center of the chest or above a pocket. They do not offer 360 degree video. They show a limited area below, above, to the sides, and none behind. Audio has its limitations as well, anything at a distance may not be heard. This means that things like someone hitting an officer from behind may not be seen.

2) Bodycams are small, and the battery is limited. Most bodycams do not have the power to stay on through an entire shift. Beyond that, there are laws and rules that state when cameras can be used and when they should not be used. If a police officer is at a location where there is no crime suspected or where there is an expectation of privacy, many agencies have rules preventing the use of the bodycam.

3) Officers must make a conscious effort to turn the bodycam on. Under stress, such as a sudden shots fired or attack, may mean the camera is not turned on. If the officer is busy or distracted, they may not be able to see if the light is turned on to indicate the camera is turned on. If it isn't it could indicate that the battery died, that when the officer pushed the button, it didn't activate, that the light is covered (black out mode), that the camera malfunctioned, or that the officer failed to turn the camera on intentionally, unintentionally, or forgot.

If someone wants to experience the limitations of a bodycam, strap your cell phone to the center of your chest, turn the camera on, and go about your day. When you review it later, you will notice that while it picked up things that you didn't remember, it didn't pick up things that you heard or experienced that you weren't directly facing.
You will also experience a lot of hostility from people if they think you are recording them.

This >>> “improve officer safety, increase evidence quality, reduce civilian complaints, and reduce agency liability.” I say is one of the top things. Accountability can be viewed for both sides of the equations, to which these cameras offer. Do Police make mistakes or intentionally cause harm? Yes, they do and these devices can deter such things. But as we can see from the tragedy in Memphis, some Officers neglect their training, fail to realize their actions will be reviewed, they got stupid, and these cameras have helped root out some from a very small amount of Police Officers inclined to abuse their authority and adherence to policy and law. But these cameras have also been invaluable at identifying those attempting to make false statements/complaints about Police too. A small search online will demonstrate tons of these examples.

But what also must be understood and appreciated, is that far too many people who do not know the law as much as they think they do, they love to play armchair QB for an officer's actions, and go on to make inaccurate assessments, prompting others to do the propagate these assessments. This is why I prefer that DAs not release footage to the public until the case has been resolved in court. High profile cases are likely to be viewed by most and can in turn influence potential jurors.