Mostly, yes, though I can also see downsides. Juries might become overly dependent on this form of evidence, to the detriment of their ability to weigh evidence.
For instance, suppose that man A punches man B, and a policeman sees it. But suppose his camera just happened to be turned the wrong way or momentarily obscured at the time so the video footage doesn't actually show the moment where man A punches man B. With this ambiguous footage available, juries might be hesitant to convict, even though multiple witnesses saw it happen, because the jury expected to be able to see it with their own eyes.
I don't really see how that follows from my logic. I was just pointing out how sticking a camera on every police officer might have downsides in some cases. On the other hand, the upsides might quite likely outweigh it.
I suppose another objection is that police officers would then have a whole new responsibility: they'd have to constantly worry about aiming their camera in the right direction. That means that a policeman who should be trying to, say, break up a fight will instead be concentrating on making sure he has his camera pointed at the fight.
For instance, suppose that man A punches man B, and a policeman sees it. But suppose his camera just happened to be turned the wrong way or momentarily obscured at the time so the video footage doesn't actually show the moment where man A punches man B. With this ambiguous footage available, juries might be hesitant to convict, even though multiple witnesses saw it happen, because the jury expected to be able to see it with their own eyes.