There's a lot of things we need to do if we want police officers to remain armed.

1. Require officers to always patrol in doubles or more. (Many of the police involved shootings are panic shootings. A buddy who can help would reduce this.)

2. Require less than lethal force at least be attempted unless you're already getting shot at. (Currently police can shoot you if you twitch wrong or just have an object in plain sight like a gun, knife, or cellphone. We know this because they've done it and had no reprecussions. So now they lose the shoot first privilege.)

3. Ban them from conducting traffic stops. Stand up an unarmed traffic specific force that doesn't have the authority to arrest anyone or run warrants. They are specifically for civil traffic enforcement. (Many police involved shootings stem from stupid things like something hanging from the mirror or even just going 10 over the limit.) To be clear, you'd still need police officers for things like DUI. Felony speeding and such can be handled with cameras and actually taking cars away. Yes that's harsh in the US, but see how fast people decide it's not worth their car to go faster. (And yes speed is directly related to more accidents and fatalities in those accidents.)

4. Required marksmanship and tactical training. You don't get to carry a gun you haven't certified in and certification is a bit more intense than beer and bullets with your buddies at the range. If you want to tell us you're constantly at war then bring in some combat infantry veterans to design your certification program. Something like 90% hit rate on random targets while your heart is in the cardio zone and someone is randomly setting off artillery simulators. Yes that's well above what the Army or Marines officially requires but you keep telling us how highly trained you are and how dangerous your job is. Prove it with the drills we did before combat deployments.

5. Always on cameras with gunshot detectors. When the detector goes off it automatically starts uploading a feed to the ACLU. If your camera is conveniently blocked then not only do you not get qualified immunity but it's also a sentence enhancement if you're convicted and charges for destroying evidence.

We act like there's a binary solution to the problem of police accountability. But it doesn't have to be binary. The only unacceptable thing at this point is to continue allowing police to have all the power and none of the accountability.

They've investigated themselves and found that everything they're doing is completely acceptable. Carry on citizen.

A police victim's family does, indeed, have the right to the video. As complainants. The video will be subpoenaed as part of the investigation that they demand.

The process by which the family gets access to the video is the exact one I described.

That's the exact problem I am trying to address.

The main issue I see is that the officer does deserve some degree of privacy while on the job. Not much, but some sensible degree.

Think about the worst micromanaging supervisor you ever had. Now, give him access to watch a feed from your body camera, observing every move you make throughout the entire day.

I wouldn't work under those conditions. The only person I can think of who would willingly work under such working conditions would be a completely anal retentive stickler for every rule. That's not the kind of cop I want working in my community.

So, if I want a good cop to keep his camera on and collecting evidence against him, yet not be subjected to an unreasonable, intrusive degree of micromanaging supervision, I have to take away his supervisor's authority to arbitrarily view his camera footage.

So, he only gets paid if he turns on his camera. He only gets qualified immunity for his actions if his camera is on. He only gets to exercise law enforcement authority if he has his camera on. But, he is protected because his video can't be used for administrative purposes.

His honesty - or lack thereof - is no longer relevant to his camera usage.

IA has access by way of a subpoena. They can present allegations or a complaint, same as anyone else, and request access to all related evidence. They shouldn't be going fishing. They should need some sort of justification before they should be allowed to pull tape.

Then they should be fired and charged with obstructing an investigation and destroying evidence.

Until there's actual accountability the police won't change.

An officer wears a body camera. A confidential informant against the mafia runs up to him in the street and starts talking to him.

A mafia lawyer files a FOIA request for the body camera video of every officer in the department.

Should the department comply with this FOIA request, give up the video and expose the informant to the mafia?

Should the officer be allowed to leave his camera off throughout the day, so as to avoid creating a record that he would be forced to turn over?

Suppose I were to SWAT you. I spoof your number, call the police, tell them I'm you, get them to raid "my" house. They get all geared up, turn in their cameras, raid your house, discover it was a prank. Should I, or anyone I tell, now be allowed to file a FOIA request for their video footage, and publish it "for the lulz"?

The idealistic, absolute position you took here would be ripe for abuse.

I want those cameras running all day long. They should be incorporated into the officer's badge, and have no "off" setting. It should be recording from the time they take it off the charger at the start of their shift, and should keep running until they put it back on the charger after their shift.

The only way that level of intrusiveness is feasible is if nobody - and I mean nobody - can view that video without a warrant or a subpoena.

Conservatives just like seeing police beat up those they disagree with.

It definitely showed just how powerful and overwhelming copaganda is. "Defund the Police" really struck a nerve with the people who hold the power in US society, I think we should keep striking that nerve.