What I believe to be germane to the topic of civilians using body-worn cameras is that most people (and clearly many who are posting in this thread) have zero understanding of how video of any use of physical or deadly force is perceived and interpreted by prosecutors' offices, juries, the media and uninvolved parties.
If one works as a patrol officer on the streets, or in a jail or prison setting, one can view a video of a critical incident or use of force and see it from the perspective of the "reasonable officer," having done the job, and understand the level of force used, if any. But I've also seen good officers suspended, reprimanded and even fired subsequent to what many peers considered totally justified uses of force. Even when clear video of the incidents was available. The big bosses, and the politicians, don't like it when they have to do lots of paperwork, especially when it makes the department look like trigger-happy thugs. Even when the use of force was necessary.
But the media and family members of the individual against whom the force was used will scream loudly that the level of force was excessive, indeed, unreasonable, unjustified and cruel. Uninvolved persons, never having had to use justified force against another human, most having never actually even been in a physical altercation, will look at the video and wonder why someone had to shoot another person who maybe was only holding a knife or otherwise didn't appear to be a threat. Then there's the real possibility that only snippets -- not the entirety -- of the video will be allowed or shown during the trial. Rittenhouse was incredibly fortunate so many people (and so many security cameras existed) were shooting video of the events on that unfortunate evening, and that all the video became available before trial.
You do NOT necessarily want to have a jury -- with the power to send you to prison possibly for the remainder of your natural life --reviewing video of your use of deadly force against another human to determine whether or not your use of deadly force was justified. Same if your event was high profile and becomes a media circus as most do these days. Good luck to you if Mas or another credible expert witness aren't available to testify in your trial.
Finally, if one is resolved to go the camera route, ensure you've got good audio to go with it. When your camera doesn't capture your assailant's hands, and there's no accompanying audio so your jury can hear "Please, drop the gun/knife" or "Put down the weapon or I'll shoot," yeah, the video, if it's your only witness, probably won't help you.
Oh, and I just noticed that the OP (a new member) hasn't even checked in on the forum, or this thread, since October 27th. Perhaps this thread has run its course and needs to expire...
