however i see your point. i believe this is really a failure of police in our modern society. police don’t take driving incidents seriously! it’s their job after all.

so if someone is carrying a baseball bat, a knife, or any other sort of weapon that can trivially kill or maim others they should be wearing the body cam?

They should expect to be filmed in public more than people not carrying weapons. This already happens.

Would you have that same viewpoint if the goal of the person with the camera was to setup outside of addiction centers, abortion clinics, strip clubs, casinos, etc and publically identify people anyone coming or going? I mean they are public so should they "expect" to be filmed or should there be some sense of privacy?

You keep misreading things. First, you thought that people said that people who are committing crimes should wear body cams. Now you think I said that everybody in public should expect to be filmed. Neither of those things are true.

Mobility is a right, that includes driving.

And walking comes with responsibilities too, a ruthless walker also endangers others, it's just harder to kill somebody by bumping into them, until you bump them in front of a car or train or down the stairs.

I'm having trouble understanding the tone of your comment.

If it's not satire, driving as a right can be restricted (or even denied if you fail the driver's test) far more easily than walking. Because it's far more dangerous.

It’s actually not a right. The proof is you need to pass a drivers test to get a drivers license. It’s not given to you at birth. I’d argue the tests are too easy in the US, but that’s a separate discussion.

I do not need a license to walk outside.

perhaps you’re thinking of “freedom of movement”? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...