Paul_in_Maryland
Flashlight Enthusiast
I figure the gun lovers among us might want to weigh in on this story.
DC Cops might be required to have cameras on their guns
- Thread starter Paul_in_Maryland
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
Uncle Bob
Enlightened
I think the shoulder or head-mounted cameras are a better idea. They would allow both audio and video of events leading up to and including any shooting event. They would have a wider field-of-view than a gun camera.
A simple gun-mounted camera wouldn't offer that type of evidence because of its point-of-view. It only shows where the barrel is pointed and probably doesn't have audio capability.
Maybe the knowledge that a camera is recording an interaction between an officer and a citizen may discourage overreaction by both parties and the necessity of drawing a weapon.
A simple gun-mounted camera wouldn't offer that type of evidence because of its point-of-view. It only shows where the barrel is pointed and probably doesn't have audio capability.
Maybe the knowledge that a camera is recording an interaction between an officer and a citizen may discourage overreaction by both parties and the necessity of drawing a weapon.
As a shooter and extreme enthusiast I have to agree with Uncle Bob that the gun camera isn't the best media to mount a camera on. As a matter of fact, I think it's outright stupid. I have nothing against cops using camera's if it helps to convict dirt bags and also hold cops accountable when the pull the trigger.
I think we see far too many situations where a scumbag get let off in court because of a technicality or because of reasonable doubt. With video recording every action and offense during a confrontation, it will make it easier for juries to convict real criminals and overcome the resourceful lawyer factor.
We've seen cases of wrongful shootings recently where police have had a lot of latitude regarding shooting civilians driving vehicles because of the perceived "deadly weapon" threat which is sometimes real, but often not a real threat. A women not long ago was shot and by a cop in her car because she bumped his motorcycle and he was standing 90 degrees offset, five feet from the drivers door. The car had no physical way of moving sideways and no police were in front of the car, only his bike and parking blocks. Her child was also in the car and the police were there because she had stolen medication from a drug store. He got a short suspension. :huh: It's been a nasty trend lately and a civilian would be prosecuted for the same scenario....rightfully so.
Think of how many arrests and fights take place where the officer's firearm is never even drawn. I think that a helmet, hat, pocket or shoulder mounted cameras would really show the whole story. The gun camera is only going to record when it's drawn and aimed which is only a story fragment. I think that a gun camera will do little to assist their goal of making sure that criminals are prosecuted and police are policed, because if it's limited perspective.
Also, the camera itself is fairly cantankerous compared to just a laser or light mount. It really isn't shooter friendly to have that much mass near the muzzle. Some of the technical aspects of the camera aren't adding up either.... 512mb memory....40-60 minutes of MPEG 4 footage at 30 frames per second.........:shakehead uhhhhh....how? Maybe with a 2Gig SD card at 320res and 15 fps. Anyhow. I think the system makes more sense if it's running throughout a confrontation and is then immediately down loadable to a storage drive in the officers squad car or bike.
I think we see far too many situations where a scumbag get let off in court because of a technicality or because of reasonable doubt. With video recording every action and offense during a confrontation, it will make it easier for juries to convict real criminals and overcome the resourceful lawyer factor.
We've seen cases of wrongful shootings recently where police have had a lot of latitude regarding shooting civilians driving vehicles because of the perceived "deadly weapon" threat which is sometimes real, but often not a real threat. A women not long ago was shot and by a cop in her car because she bumped his motorcycle and he was standing 90 degrees offset, five feet from the drivers door. The car had no physical way of moving sideways and no police were in front of the car, only his bike and parking blocks. Her child was also in the car and the police were there because she had stolen medication from a drug store. He got a short suspension. :huh: It's been a nasty trend lately and a civilian would be prosecuted for the same scenario....rightfully so.
Think of how many arrests and fights take place where the officer's firearm is never even drawn. I think that a helmet, hat, pocket or shoulder mounted cameras would really show the whole story. The gun camera is only going to record when it's drawn and aimed which is only a story fragment. I think that a gun camera will do little to assist their goal of making sure that criminals are prosecuted and police are policed, because if it's limited perspective.
Also, the camera itself is fairly cantankerous compared to just a laser or light mount. It really isn't shooter friendly to have that much mass near the muzzle. Some of the technical aspects of the camera aren't adding up either.... 512mb memory....40-60 minutes of MPEG 4 footage at 30 frames per second.........:shakehead uhhhhh....how? Maybe with a 2Gig SD card at 320res and 15 fps. Anyhow. I think the system makes more sense if it's running throughout a confrontation and is then immediately down loadable to a storage drive in the officers squad car or bike.
baterija
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,053
Frankly it sounds like it's being pushed by someone who is clueless about use of force. This seems like a recipe for more community relations issues than it prevents.
Problems I see:
- Makes the weapon less manageable. Affecting the balance and length of the weapon can make use of deadly force less effective when it is required. That means greater risks to the officers, and to random people nearby if a round fails to find it's intended target.
- At the low ready the pistol cam will be showing ground. Video of a shooting might literally just be a shot of the ground followed by the muzzle coming up and the shooting beginning.
- There's no context on what was happening before the officer drew the weapon in the first place.
- Use of deadly force is horrifying, even when completely justified. The emotional response to the video may overwhelm the ability to be rational about why it occurred.
- How do you manage the video? Do we truly want videos of people being shot distributed under the Freedom of Information Act?
Problems I see:
- Makes the weapon less manageable. Affecting the balance and length of the weapon can make use of deadly force less effective when it is required. That means greater risks to the officers, and to random people nearby if a round fails to find it's intended target.
- At the low ready the pistol cam will be showing ground. Video of a shooting might literally just be a shot of the ground followed by the muzzle coming up and the shooting beginning.
- There's no context on what was happening before the officer drew the weapon in the first place.
- Use of deadly force is horrifying, even when completely justified. The emotional response to the video may overwhelm the ability to be rational about why it occurred.
- How do you manage the video? Do we truly want videos of people being shot distributed under the Freedom of Information Act?
baterija, I loved all of your points even if the last one was a little bit soft. I'm not sure how much of an issue it would be to witness violent material. With todays media coverage and in depth, play by play, of BTK killings, I think the public these days is more acclimated to seeing violence than we might give it credit for. I feel that it's more important to have the truth than questioning if the public is able to handle viewing objectionable video footage.
I think that cameras are fine, just not on the gun! If recording the truth is the goal, a gun mounted camera only gives a fraction of the whole, important story.
I think that cameras are fine, just not on the gun! If recording the truth is the goal, a gun mounted camera only gives a fraction of the whole, important story.
dano
Flashlight Enthusiast
It's just another dumb LEO fad, similar to in car cameras.
When these cameras begin to acquit Officers in deadly force encounters, especially in the Court Of Public Opinion (with emphasis on the usual news item that the suspect was such a good person and would never try kill anyone...he was a good boy and the police murdered him, etc etc etc), and the alphabet organizations lose lawsuits and the big cities refuse to payout, then the cameras will go away, as the alphabet organizations will seek another form of "oversight."
I think there's also New York State legislation pending on the same issue. Just another pandering stupid politician looking for the quick vote...
When these cameras begin to acquit Officers in deadly force encounters, especially in the Court Of Public Opinion (with emphasis on the usual news item that the suspect was such a good person and would never try kill anyone...he was a good boy and the police murdered him, etc etc etc), and the alphabet organizations lose lawsuits and the big cities refuse to payout, then the cameras will go away, as the alphabet organizations will seek another form of "oversight."
I think there's also New York State legislation pending on the same issue. Just another pandering stupid politician looking for the quick vote...
cjawcrusher512
Banned
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Messages
- 13
I agree with you
I agree with you !I support you .
I agree with you !I support you .
Chrontius
Flashlight Enthusiast
Re: I agree with you
You know, this is a step in the direction of having Land Warrior on police handguns.
Of this, I approve.
Not worried about balance issues - shouldn't be any worse than a gun light or laser sight.
You know, this is a step in the direction of having Land Warrior on police handguns.
Of this, I approve.
Not worried about balance issues - shouldn't be any worse than a gun light or laser sight.
Last edited:
depusm12
Flashlight Enthusiast
I agree it would be just another useless item that I would have to carry. Although there actually is a alternative that is smaller and might work better. There are camera's that are made in the handheld microphones that are attached to radios police carry on the belt.
TOOCOOL
Enlightened
depusm12
Flashlight Enthusiast
Why the handset microphone is something most cops already have on their radios so it wouldn't add much if any weight.
baterija
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,053
Re: I agree with you
I have yet to see a LEO officer on regular patrol who has a gun light mounted, however. At least Land Warrior tries to add significant capability to the infantry soldier, at the expense of a lot of extra hassle and weight. Gun cam seems to be bad at meeting the expressed need, and still add other costs.
Now mic cam at least would be less intrusive, and be better at providing video for oversight purposes. It would capture the context of what happened better, and would be available to show the whole continuum of force.
I have yet to see a LEO officer on regular patrol who has a gun light mounted, however. At least Land Warrior tries to add significant capability to the infantry soldier, at the expense of a lot of extra hassle and weight. Gun cam seems to be bad at meeting the expressed need, and still add other costs.
Now mic cam at least would be less intrusive, and be better at providing video for oversight purposes. It would capture the context of what happened better, and would be available to show the whole continuum of force.
TOOCOOL
Enlightened
Cams will weigh the same no matter where you put it. The video/audio is going to be strange if the cop is using the radio. Plus with a helmet cam its not so likely to be obstructed.
Chrontius
Flashlight Enthusiast
Re: I agree with you
No gunlight: Okay, same here - but most cops here carry a gunlight on a belt clip that they can use either as a backup light, or a weapon light - yes, quick-attack hardware.
Second, a police version of Land Warrior could be much, much simpler, lighter, and cheaper - the part the soldiers love most is the ability to fire around cover without exposing their head, and police don't generally need to be able to see the location of friendlies on a map when planning close air support.
The gunlight-cam and a wireless monocle could be implemented without too much trouble methinks, along with some discreet recording hardware. Also, the monocle could have its own camera, too - the best of both worlds, and it offsets its weight penalty with a significant combat advantage, IMHO.
No gunlight: Okay, same here - but most cops here carry a gunlight on a belt clip that they can use either as a backup light, or a weapon light - yes, quick-attack hardware.
Second, a police version of Land Warrior could be much, much simpler, lighter, and cheaper - the part the soldiers love most is the ability to fire around cover without exposing their head, and police don't generally need to be able to see the location of friendlies on a map when planning close air support.
The gunlight-cam and a wireless monocle could be implemented without too much trouble methinks, along with some discreet recording hardware. Also, the monocle could have its own camera, too - the best of both worlds, and it offsets its weight penalty with a significant combat advantage, IMHO.
