Is a body cam my best legal protection as a CCW Person?

I was tasked to help with the IT backend of a newer system at a local PD when they upgraded their units. The latest iteration of the Tazer has some interesting recording features too.

The newest police systems; trigger when their sidearm is drawn and when they are around other activated body cameras(multiple units on scene). The officer should be activating the camera as they leave their car and there is a buffer that goes back a few seconds if they are late to activate it. They also have the option of flashing light, audible or vibrate reminders that they are recording/being recorded. Avoids recording while they are "indisposed."

 

It only takes several seconds and a button push to activate mine i wear while on a motorcycle. It stays on standby mode. Bikers wear go pros and such so no one pays it any attention. The idea is you activate it if you even think there is a reason to do so. If it turns out there was no reason that's what the "video delete" function is for. Now for anyone just walking around wearing a body camera, that just seems downright goofy to me.

 

yes, i can't remember where, it could be here , I don't go on that many. It stuck with me. A quick search shows this one right off the bat https://thecrimereport.org/2009/10/05/how-many-laws-did-you-break-today/ . there are many more, including of course traffic laws. It depends on your occupation also and what your exposure is.

 

There's many cameras out there any local government has and private ones as well in parking lots stores out side stores etc. So I don't feel the need. However I might like one in my car. The vehicle ones can practically do surround view of your vehicle.

 

"As far as doing the right thing all day with a body cam on, the average person breaks multiple laws on the average day, some may be felonies, in many cases unwittingly."

I wasn't thinking anything that dramatic. But let's say you stop off in the morning and go fishing. You get arrested with a snook out of season, because they changed the season again, or you didn't know the season was different in that county. Maybe the cop doesn't even know, and he's wrong. Then the cop asks how you got down to the river and NOW you notice the no trespassing sign. "I came down the other side of the bridge." But your body cam shows you coming down where you did, and it's armed trespass, a felony.

 

Good point, with the maze of sensitive locales and areas - do you want record when you wander into one by mistake or you ran a quick errand. Yes, you shouldn't do this.

Aside - read a bunch of law reviews that stated Scotus screwed up by mentioning sensitive locales but no test for such. That gave anti states a wide open road to ban reasonable carry. No, just mentioning Manhattan was not sufficient, Clarence.

 

Your best protection is not shooting someone tbh and if you really really really "have to" it's probably obvious enough that you don't need a camera. I come from a liberal state and I grantee you a lot of people will look a dude wearing a body cam for this reason as someone looking for an excuse to shoot someone and has a camera to "justify it". I am not saying that's how I feel I am saying that it can be used against you and may not be as helpful as you think.
You might even catch yourself on video doing something against the law too so.
- As someone who has an inherent mistrust of LE it's just one more thing they can get from you and your phone has enough already, why add more?

 

In mind, something like actually having been attacked, that often leaves evidence. Everyone is different and I can only speak my opinions and that of many of the people I associate with in my home state.

 

It might. Or it might show the opposite and be the strongest evidence against a person, not everyone who carries for defense has perfect judgement. Idk man, many of us already have too much stuff to fork over to LE if compelled to do so, why add more?

 

A bad guy charging at you with a knife doesn’t have to be successful. Shouldn’t the goal be to avoid his blade at all cost and if we have to, stop him without getting sliced. The victim does not always have injuries from an attempted attack so video evidence would be a benefit. (I’m not saying I’m for body cams though)

 

Wow, you guys are still talking about this topic?

Which, to me, is the epitome of overthinking every single aspect of each moment of our existence on a daily basis.

I was on a mini-vacation for a week and missed this:

Yet another urban legend, truism, whatever. Let's talk prosecutable felonies. Fact remains, if one doesn't use drugs that are currently considered illegal by the federal government or one's state of residence, this statement is utter bull-crap. Personally, whenever I see this said, the person who regurgitates this tripe instantly loses all credibility with me. Silvergate and Crovitz have long been totally discredited. Please don't believe this crapola. Just don't put lithium batteries in your checked luggage when you fly commercial and you'll be fine.

Other than law enforcement officers being scrutinized for possible bad uses of deadly/physical force, one probably wants to research just how often citizen-worn body cameras or vehicle-mounted cameras are used to "prove" innocence in criminal proceedings.

 

The way a cam works is, the viewer(s) perceive what they see, and that one body cam, with a changing angle and it's view of a historical event may result in a distorted idea or perception as compared with the actual event in it's entirety. Better than nothing? Perhaps.

 

wow don't sugar coat it. the fact is the average person does often unwittingly, sometimes not, break laws during an average day. whether I lost credibility with you, won't cost me any sleep tonight. no where did i say they would be apprehended and/ or prosecuted. The point which went right over your head, is that a cam may well show you breaking a law unwittingly.

 

Doubling down, eh? Your original statement also mentioned felonies.

At any rate, other than perhaps not observing the posted speed limits on public roads, "the fact" is not in evidence.

Yikes! There is no point to be made, since you are basing an argument on a false premise.

 

An affirmative defense does not shift the burden of proof. However, practically speaking, it is encumbent upon the defendant to articulate their justification.

 

Kleanbore i posted a link to one example earlier in this thread.

 

What I believe to be germane to the topic of civilians using body-worn cameras is that most people (and clearly many who are posting in this thread) have zero understanding of how video of any use of physical or deadly force is perceived and interpreted by prosecutors' offices, juries, the media and uninvolved parties.

If one works as a patrol officer on the streets, or in a jail or prison setting, one can view a video of a critical incident or use of force and see it from the perspective of the "reasonable officer," having done the job, and understand the level of force used, if any. But I've also seen good officers suspended, reprimanded and even fired subsequent to what many peers considered totally justified uses of force. Even when clear video of the incidents was available. The big bosses, and the politicians, don't like it when they have to do lots of paperwork, especially when it makes the department look like trigger-happy thugs. Even when the use of force was necessary.

But the media and family members of the individual against whom the force was used will scream loudly that the level of force was excessive, indeed, unreasonable, unjustified and cruel. Uninvolved persons, never having had to use justified force against another human, most having never actually even been in a physical altercation, will look at the video and wonder why someone had to shoot another person who maybe was only holding a knife or otherwise didn't appear to be a threat. Then there's the real possibility that only snippets -- not the entirety -- of the video will be allowed or shown during the trial. Rittenhouse was incredibly fortunate so many people (and so many security cameras existed) were shooting video of the events on that unfortunate evening, and that all the video became available before trial.

You do NOT necessarily want to have a jury -- with the power to send you to prison possibly for the remainder of your natural life --reviewing video of your use of deadly force against another human to determine whether or not your use of deadly force was justified. Same if your event was high profile and becomes a media circus as most do these days. Good luck to you if Mas or another credible expert witness aren't available to testify in your trial.

Finally, if one is resolved to go the camera route, ensure you've got good audio to go with it. When your camera doesn't capture your assailant's hands, and there's no accompanying audio so your jury can hear "Please, drop the gun/knife" or "Put down the weapon or I'll shoot," yeah, the video, if it's your only witness, probably won't help you.

Oh, and I just noticed that the OP (a new member) hasn't even checked in on the forum, or this thread, since October 27th. Perhaps this thread has run its course and needs to expire...