Body cameras allow you to see not only what suspects did, but what the officer did and said, almost as if seeing the incident through their eyes. It's not a lopsided perspective, it's both sides displayed through one device. I'm pretty sure I've heard statistics out there (don't quote me) about claims of abuse going down since body cams became standard practice, as well.

Wonder if some action can be taken to counter this move, aside from public objections, which have already been issued by the ACLU etc?

... but in the stupidest way possible that folks who view these videos later, with the benefit of hindsight, not at risk and probably in possession of more information than was available at the time, would not judge the officers fairly.

It's a legitimate point but the benefits outweigh the costs IMO.

He sees cameras as a win all-around: They protect the interests of both officer and citizen, and by their presence and the recognition by both sides that their interaction is being recorded, he believes cameras keep both sides from overreacting.

But then, he favored them while on duty because, as he explained, he never gave cause for complaint.

We did agree however that even in the best of circumstances reasonable people can disagree on whether the ball was caught and if the tag was made before or after the baserunner hit the bag. Given those limitations, and the uncertainties they can sometimes cause, the use of cameras in law enforcement seems an overall positive.

I wonder what has Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzales worried?

Why would we want to get a story except from his people directly?

...then what's the point of wearing a badge, right?

Pure unadulterated facts. It’s on the side of truth. Very one-sided on the side of truth.

rather than what happened at face value?

These people are unbelievable.