Shotcam, good idea or bad idea?


PDA






Boba Fett
February 27, 2009, 01:41 PM
Perusing Burris' website, I came across the Shotcam. (http://www.burrisoptics.com/shotcam.html)

http://www.burrisoptics.com/images/Shotcam.jpghttp://www.swfa.com/images/product/medium/300225.jpg


The moment you unholster, the Shotcam™ automatically begins recording high-quality digital video and audio of events as they occur. Every visual detail, every sound, every action is documented for later analysis.

The encrypted video/audio supercedes any questionable, conflicting or biased eyewitness accounts and can dramatically reduce personal, departmental and jurisdictional liability.

Footage can also be used to help identify suspects who have managed to flee the scene. And the Shotcam, when removed from a weapon, can continue to provide video, still frames and audio of a crime scene and witnesses.



The application that caught my eye was:
Liability concerns do not start and stop with law enforcement. ShotCam
can provide your best evidence when presenting your self-defense
arguments in court.


My opinion is, it could go both ways. I can see the footage being good for your defense and bad for your defense. Ultimately, I think it would cause people more legal problems than it would help.

That and the darn think is terribly bulky looking on a pistol. Now, for their other applications, I think it might be nice. Mount it on the front of your AR-15 and have fun. Or mount it on your rifle when you go hunting and record you kill.

So, what do you all think?

If you enjoyed reading about "Shotcam, good idea or bad idea?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ThrottleJockey
February 27, 2009, 02:13 PM
Wow! I've never seen these. I think it could be a lot of fun for plinking with. I think it could go either way as a witness to a defensive shooting. If you are responsible in your decision to use deadly force, it can only serve to reinforce the fact that you did the right thing, on the other hand if you "freak out" or get scared and the shoot was questionable, it could hurt you. My only problem is how bulky it is. It seems as though a defense weapon would be nearly impossible to conceal with this on it. And in some places where printing can even get you in trouble, this just isn't even an option.

Hungry Seagull
February 27, 2009, 02:13 PM
I wonder if that thing will ride well on a shotgun rail with the imagery "Right side up"

I cannot imagine putting that on my M&P .45 I would need to be on the floor with a tac bipod deployed to hold it all steady.

ThrottleJockey
February 27, 2009, 02:19 PM
It lists at $892, a bit restrictive for most of us, unless you know a wealthy individual that bought one and doesn't like it.

Hey, that looks like a 90-two in the picture!

Boba Fett
February 27, 2009, 02:21 PM
I think it could go either way as a witness to a defensive shooting. If you are responsible in your decision to use deadly force, it can only serve to reinforce the fact that you did the right thing.

That was my first thought too. Then I started thinking civil cases. And I would think that any footage would just hurt you in such a case since the "lawyer" could twist the number of shots or your shot placement or whatever against you at that point. So the footage would just give them more to use against you was my final thought on it.

Gunther
February 27, 2009, 02:22 PM
This is the new wave in Police work, spelled LIABILITY.The Tasers now have cameras attached, the patrol cars have cameras, this is one more tool for the industry to get rich off of, "the threat of the tort lawyers". When they get it miniturized enough it will gain a foothold as the industry standard and away you go!

Boba Fett
February 27, 2009, 02:26 PM
It lists at $892, a bit restrictive for most of us, unless you know a wealthy individual that bought one and doesn't like it.

Found it on ImpactGuns.com for $511...still a bit restrictive.

But maybe not so much when you consider that they have to build a camera that can take the vibration and abuse of being on a firearm. Still...for that price it could be better than a 3.2 megapixel...


This is the new wave in Police work, spelled LIABILITY.The Tasers now have cameras attached, the patrol cars have cameras, this is one more tool for the industry to get rich off of, "the threat of the tort lawyers". When they get it miniturized enough it will gain a foothold as the industry standard and away you go!

EEP! :eek:

I hadn't thought of that, but you are right...it is a very logical next step. So, in addition to serialized ammo and micro stamping and all the other BS they want to add, I can imagine something like a guide rod camera or something that you will be breaking the law if you remove or disable. And all your old guns will have to be retrofitted or be confiscated....

hey...has anyone else noticed how slippery this slope is??


*EDIT*
The Tasers now have cameras attached
Hey, now I think that one might be worth it...I mean, who wouldn't want TazerCam footage of the "Don't taze me bro" guy?? :D :p

Blakenzy
February 27, 2009, 02:39 PM
I think that the concept is great for police issue weapons (because they get drawn alot!), but the technology needs a bit more perfecting, mainly in the size/weight department. If dashboard cams in cruisers make sense, then this idea makes sense for uniforms on duty, just needs more streamlining. Perhaps a standalone camera could connect to a remote recording device on the belt via Bluetooth to reduce size.

I wouldn't like to see it forced on all weapons, just as I wouldn't want dashboard cams forced on all vehicles.

What effect could it have on training methods?

Maybe it will further televise the shooting sports. It would be neat to watch IPSC matches from the muzzle POV...

BillyBA
February 27, 2009, 02:43 PM
It might be a useful tool for LEO , but for civilian use in my opinion , it's just another gadget that seems pretty much useless and a waste of money that I would prefer using to buy another fire arm or even a nice laser and lots of ammo with mullah left over ?

X-Rap
February 27, 2009, 02:49 PM
For hunting it would be awesome. There are some I saw a Cabelas for much less but not as compact.

LtShortcut
February 27, 2009, 10:33 PM
That was my first thought too. Then I started thinking civil cases. And I would think that any footage would just hurt you in such a case since the "lawyer" could twist the number of shots or your shot placement or whatever against you at that point. So the footage would just give them more to use against you was my final thought on it.

The camera is your property. There's nothing stopping you from looking at the photos before the police arrive.

If you don't like the story they tell, take the camera off the gun and put it away.

Hungry Seagull
February 27, 2009, 10:36 PM
Actually I believe IMHO that putting the gun camera away is bad advice.

The entire house becomes a crime scene and forensics are going to go through everything. That camera and images on it becomes evidence.

I liked a rather large gun cam I saw at a Ft Thompson some time ago and would not mind seeing what it would do. But once the initial oooh and ahhh wore off, I realized it's just a few too many switches to throw, more weight on the gun etc etc etc.

Let the inside home survillence DVR recorder record the invasion and turn that over to the police and have it ready for your upcoming court.

ThrottleJockey
February 27, 2009, 10:37 PM
"The camera is your property. There's nothing stopping you from looking at the photos before the police arrive.

If you don't like the story they tell, take the camera off the gun and put it away."

Until they arrest you, search you, impound your car, search it.....Also it doesn't appear to be a camera with a view finder. It looks to me like you would have to plug it into a computer and then view the video.

503glock
February 27, 2009, 10:38 PM
if you have them some one will ask did you have a shot cam, and you dont want to be in the place where you lie about any thing in a shooting. they will at that point twist every thing, then god help you . besides in a shooting the one truth is that your story will be the only story left.

gvnwst
February 27, 2009, 10:39 PM
Pretty cool, but i would not use it for anything more than plinking or maybe even recording your shooting of a match stage....

Gamera
February 27, 2009, 10:46 PM
Ah yes, I can see it now:

Knife wielding maniac is running towards you while yelling "I'M GONNA KILL YOU!"
*you draw weapon/start recording, the perp stops* "Woah wait man I was ju- *BLAM*

Now imagine all that happened within a matter of seconds. So even though you acted well within your rights to self defense, all the jury will see is this guys stopping and saying "woah wait man I ju" before you blew him away. Ok so maybe that's a bit of an exaggerated situation, but you get my drift.

Duke of Doubt
February 27, 2009, 10:50 PM
Good God.

"Mister [Smith], did you happen to make any digital, audio or visual recording of the events last All Saints Day?

"You did? Can we see them?"

"You didn't? WHY NOT?"

No win. No tape. No way. No how.

Doesn't mean it wasn't recorded, though. Audio, analog, most likely never needed.

LtShortcut
February 28, 2009, 12:52 AM
Until they arrest you, search you, impound your car, search it.....Also it doesn't appear to be a camera with a view finder. It looks to me like you would have to plug it into a computer and then view the video.

I was thinking of in a home. And police response here is about half-an hour.

if you have them some one will ask did you have a shot cam, and you dont want to be in the place where you lie about any thing in a shooting. they will at that point twist every thing, then god help you . besides in a shooting the one truth is that your story will be the only story left.

Why are you talking to the police without a lawyer?


I'm being sarcastic about the camera on your weapon. I wouldn't put a camera on my weapon no way no how.

What if your photo didn't get the guy's weapon in the shot? What if the photo snapped while he was rearing back to stab you and the photo made it look like you shot him in the back?

Bad idea.

ThrottleJockey
February 28, 2009, 01:15 AM
it records live action full motion video and audio, not just snapshots or stills.

Halo is for Kids
February 28, 2009, 02:07 AM
Someday they'll be smaller, cheaper, and required.

Shovelhead
February 28, 2009, 07:29 AM
Thanks to this technology, an incident that you had a split second to react to, will be played over and over, and debated for days in 'What If" questions in a Jury Deliberation room. :uhoh:

I'd skip the "instant replay" for defense.

Double Naught Spy
February 28, 2009, 08:04 AM
While I like the idea of cameras documenting police work, there is the inherent problem here of the camera really only seeing where the gun is pointed, not where the officer is looking. So being at low ready or suhl means the camera will miss potentially critical imagery.

What does the holster look like for one of these things?

In looking at the video from Stealth Cam, Epic cam, and other action cameras, I have to wonder about the imagery on this little camera. Most seem to have an overly wide field of view and so you lose signicant detail at distance, distance being 20-30 yards. So maybe it is good for typical handgun distances, it might not be all that helpful for shotgun or rifle distances.

No doubt that part of the reason for this shortcoming is the low resolution...

MPEG4 Camcorder with 30 minutes of password-secured VGA 640X480 video/audio at 30 frames per second. After 30 minutes of video is recorded, ShotCam automatically switches to Auto-Still mode and captures high resolution photos both manually and during a recoil event. The on-board memory is 512 megabytes which allows for over 30 minutes of video plus over 100 high resolution still images.

While maybe not bad for the type of camera that it is, it 640x480 resolution isn't really all that great as compared to your home digital video cameras.

The 3.2 megapixel stills are also pretty low resolution.

Acera
February 28, 2009, 03:47 PM
In a shooting I want the only verbal description of the issue relayed to the police to come from me, through my lawyer. I don't want the bad guy to tell his story, nor do I want anything else for them to question my account of the events.

Definitely not saying destroy or hide evidence, just limit what does not protect, or could potentially harm your side of the story.


Would love to have one at the range to help teach shooters what they are doing wrong. Could be used to explain how flinching hurts accuracy, etc. Just like professional athletes use video to critique their performance.

If you enjoyed reading about "Shotcam, good idea or bad idea?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!