senator wants cameras on cop guns

[Siderite]

Looking at the photo, it seems huge, and I don't see it being practical to holster.

Also searched and found a better view:

And a company that makes them:
http://www.pistolcam.com/products.asp
It is telling that the website doesn't have any photos of the actual device, only computer-generated images added to photos.

I'm in favor of police accountability, but I don't think the technology is practical yet. That said, it won't get to a practical level without some field testing and refinement.

 

[jfh]

Add it on, boys

The Council will buy you new duty belts--if the tax surcharge is passed.

[/IMG]

(Image courtesy of S&W Performance Center.)

Jim H.

 

[Pilgrim]

It's just like gun cameras on fighter aircraft. Can't claim a kill unless you have film to prove it.

Pilgrim

 

[Ken C]

Wouldn't a camera mounted on the cop provide the same information ?

 

[MechAg94]

I don't like the gun idea, but they already have them on the cars with microphones the officers wear. A small camera the officer can wear would be more practical.

It certainly would help officers defend themselves against brutality accusations.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Yes it would. Cameras on guns is a stupid idea, but cameras on the cops themselves is a great idea. What about incidents where the officer doesn't draw, like traffic violations. I think having the camera on all the time would be much better than one that's only on when the weapon is drawn.

 

[Igloodude]

For traffic violations, the dashboard cam would pretty much seem to take care of it. And I think the difference between the "cop-mounted" and "gun-mounted" cameras are that when the gun is drawn one almost certainly would want a video recorder playing and it's easier for a gun-mounted one to know that the gun is drawn. Otherwise there's the technological issue of needing to record an entire shift and store it in a very physically small/light unit.

I mean, I'm cool either way, but if I was required to pick out less than 10% of an officer's day to video record, times that his weapon was unholstered would be at the top of my list.

 

[RX-178]

I used to consider that unnecessary. Not anymore.

The truth of the matter is, the anti-gun stance is spilling directly into police training. You've probably heard the phrase, that's currently being drilled into far too many police recruits nationwide: 'The moment you put on this uniform, you're a target.'

It sounds simple, but it's actually quite a profound statement that means nothing less than police officers are being trained to consider American citizens to be their ENEMY. ESPECIALLY any American citizen who owns a firearm. There's even officers out there who are taught that concealed carry holders keep their guns so they can shoot cops at traffic stops.

I know this because I have had a police officer pull his sidearm on me, just for being a concealed carry holder. I was pulled over for a reason that I can't honestly remember, but he was being friendly about it, and there were no problems, until he asked for my license and registration. As I normally do, I handed over both my driver's license, and my concealed carry license (it's not REQUIRED by law, but running the driver's license would have shown I have a concealed carry license anyway, and I figured it'd be better to get it all out in the open at first, rather than have the cop wonder why I was hiding it).


The moment he saw the concealed carry license, he stepped back, drew his firearm and pointed it directly at me, demanding that I get out of the car, and 'kick the gun over to him'. Police officers have the legal power to /temporarily/ disarm citizens, but the fact that this officer decided it was necessary to disarm me AT GUNPOINT is very revealing.

Yes, I fully support cameras being on police firearms, police uniforms, police cars, and even in police stations and police academies, and have all video from those cameras be public record.


(By the way, I was unable to comply with his order, because, as I explained to him, my firearm was in the glove compartment, not on my person! The officer in question is no longer employed with that department.)

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Police academies are not public. They are run by colleges and the trainees do no become civil servants until they graduate, are hired, and sworn in.

 

[RX-178]

I think police academies should be public.

At the very least I want to know who taught that the correct response to a concealed carry holder is to point a gun at them.

That officer may no longer be employed as law enforcement, but the person who taught them that may be teaching the same thing to future police officers still.

 

[MadBadger]

I think this is a poorly thought-out idea. Sounds like a knee jerk reaction to a handful of bad/questionable shootings.

The light automatically comes on... so that way when an officer is clearing a dark warehouse at dark thirty, the perp will know EXACTLY where he is.

Most holsters aren't rail-accessory bearing. Sure, the industry will make a few models, but this will severely limit an officer's holster choice (which is already severely limited by the dept., if not "THIS HOLSTER ONLY.")

A few years down the road, these would be required on all civilian CCW guns as well. (Laughable, but you better believe Brady would be screaming for it)

It didn't work in the Bourne Ultimatum, and it won't work in real life.

A camera on the officer's body, however, I think could work. If it was very small, light, unobtrosove, say, a small unit that clipped to the epaulet and ran a wire down to the storage device on the belt. There does not need to be a light on it. If the camera can't see it, the officer can't either, eh? And if you can't see something, civilians or LEOs have no business pulling the trigger.

 

[Blackbeard]

Wearable cameras might be a good idea. Gun cameras are stupid. What are you going to see? The last half-second of someone's life, that's what. It won't show you the previous five seconds which led to him getting shot. Up until the shot you'll have a great view of the ground, or the inside of the officer's holster.

 

[F4GIB]

Police academies are not public.

Some are (e.g., Minneapolis), some aren't (suburbs).

 

[RX-178]

I suppose what I want, more than any method of implementation, is for police officers to know that they are accountable, by the public as a whole, for ANYTHING they do.

Wearable cameras that they are required by law to wear whenever they are on duty would be my first choice for that. But it's pointless if other police officers are the only ones with access to the video. Anything recorded by those cameras must be of public record.

The dashboard camera got rid of one stupid cop, in the instance I mentioned, but I'm sure much more is done outside the view of a police cruiser dash cam.

The open carry incident that's mentioned elsewhere on these boards is a fine example. One cop even threatened to arrest someone for videotaping them in the act! They need these cameras on them so that they know that they're under public scrutiny whenever they put on a badge (in fact, having the camera IN their badge may not be a bad idea), and will be held fully accountable for whatever they do.

Despite my dim view on federal law as a whole, I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't support a requirement of worn cameras on any and all law enforcement officers throughout the country. The people should be 'big brother' to the police, not the other way around.

 

[Powderman]

ARRRRRRRRGH!!!!!


Oh. My. Gosh.

WHAT in the HECK are you folks talking about?!?

Cameras on guns. Yeah, right!!!

This is so far past STUPID it doesn't even deserve comment.

And once again, I am quite amazed by the HATRED displayed by some of the members of this board against law enforcement officers. Wow!

"I believe that the police should be accountable for their actions."

Right. We already ARE--to a MUCH GREATER EXTENT than you can dream of.

"Police Academies are run by colleges"

OK. Yeah. Sure. Most are NOT, dear poster. Most are run by the State or local jurisdiction where the commission originates.

Oh, boy. Where do you folks get all these bright ideas?

And wearing a camera on my uniform? Oh, please.

Here's an idea....

Since you don't trust the police at all, I want you to write a letter to your local police department, to the mayor in the city you live in, to your State Patrol and county Sheriff, and to the Governor of your State.

Tell them that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES will you accept ANY police response for you or your family, to your home or place of business, for ANY reason.

As a matter of fact, why don't you lobby your local governments to establish a no-response list? Place your name on the list.

This way, you won't get any responses from 911/EMS, your name will be removed from the E911 system, you don't get any fire department support, and you darned won't be bothered by those pesky cops. Hey--we're all idiots, right?

You'll excuse me now--I have a donut to eat.

(Insert sounds and video of a man bashing his head through walls and frothing at the mouth in frustration)

 

[Deavis]

Is there really a camera that can stand up to the recoil forces of a handgun?

People said the same thing about lasers. The fact is that modern electronics are remarkably resiliant when properly packaged. The recoil of a gun is not really a big deal because the force isn't actually acting on the electronics directly. Besides, even with wire bonded packaging, SMT components, and a pathetic underfill you could slam a properly packaged board against the ground with all your might and not break a component on it. That is the benefit of solid state! Don't mistake common consumer goods for a well-designed system... they are not the same thing.

So, the answer to your question is yes, it is pretty straightforward to construct a camera to standup to recoil physcially. The picture quality is another story completely but, again, can be worked through using standard engineering practices. Testing takes place some amazingly high G forces in the industry but those aren't products you buy at Wal-Mart.

That recorder doesn't seem too much bigger than the original laser sights that came out. I can't find a picture of the LEM, but I think it was about that big, wasn't it? Honestly, who cares? Make the cops use 'em or don't. I would bet 95% of the time the camera would completely exonerate the cop and provide great film for the local news crew to show when Tyrel's or Jimmy Joe's family starts talking about how good a boy they had and how he never did nuthin wrong. Let's see that film of him attacking an officer run at 5PM and then move onto the weather. The other 5% would probably be a wash.

Cameras on guns. Yeah, right!!!

The technology is there and it will only get better with time. It will happen and it will probably be a good thing, just like dash cams are now. Invaluable evidence for good comps and damning evidence for bad cops. Either way, everyone wins. Good cops and citizens, which is what rational people want.

 

[TAB]

I believe that the police should be accountable for their actions."

Right. We already ARE--to a MUCH GREATER EXTENT than you can dream of.

That maybe true some places, but it is not true, for my local LEA.


I also can't see why a LEO would be against something that could save them from false accusations. I remember the same thing when they were putting cameras in the cars... funny how the LEO unions fought those tooth and nail... 10 years later, they are glad that they have them.

 

[BigO01]

This will end the careers of as many good cops as bad .

Suppose a kid pulls/points a toy gun at a cop and the cops shoots and kills him .

On a tape or whatever it can be watched over and over again by a jury and if there is even a minor tell tale sign that it was a toy gun they will crucify that cop .

They will have hours or days to second guess a decision that needed to be made in a half of a second , Live or Die thats the cops decision perhaps in pain after a physical fight , or in the dark or both all in a split second .

When the first good cop goes to jail for murder due to this idea if it goes through dozens will walk and all we will be left with are the crooked ones who think they can get away with anything due to their connections .

Convictions often hinge on intent and it is impossible to defend ones self when they have a video and a slick talking attorney against nothing but your word .

Too many good police have already been sacraficed on the alter of public opinion when the race card has been tossed around .

 

[TAB]

Too many good police have already been sacraficed on the alter of public opinion when the race card has been tossed around

Correct me where I am wrong.

LEO are public employees.
the public signs thier checks every time they pay taxs.

If this was a private company doing something you did not like... would you still buy thier product/ service.

Far to many public servents forget tha they are public servents.

 

[cluttonfred]

I hear you, BigO01, really, but I don't agree. Yes, you will have "armchair quarterbacks" second-guessing the police in some situations, but especially in emotionally charged cases like those with a racial element, the video footage will help to establish the facts. Yes, I am sure there will be exceptions, but since I believe that most cops are decent people, I tend to think that most of the time the video would do more good to the cop's case than harm. When the bad guy's ten buddies all say, "we were just minding our own business" and the video footage shows him coming at the cop with a baseball bat, it won't be a case of one person's word against another.

This doesn't change the issue that a shoulder- or head-mounted camera might be a better solution, however. A lightweight camera and microphone could be integrated into the shoulder-mounted speaker/microphone for the radio, or a very small and light camera and microphone could be mounted on a hat or headset, something like the V.I.O. POV.1.

 

[RX-178]

As a person, I would very much object to having everything I do recorded and observed for later review.

I do not have such wide, and indisputable power over others that the police do.

They may have less power than police in other countries, but that does not mean they do not have a great deal of power over anyone within their jurisdiction.

The argument that police are average Americans doing a job is just outright false. Every single Law Enforcement Officer in this country is granted powers and privileges that no other class of people have.

Because of the amount of power that each individual police officer possesses, they MUST be held accountable for any and all action they take while exercising that power.

Recording those actions is the only way that this will be the case.

 

[TAB]

RX-178, if you work in a office building, chances are every thing you do at work is recorded and can be observed for later review.

 

[RX-178]

And I would very much object to that.



But depending on the paycheck, I'd endure it.

 

[Powderman]

Every single Law Enforcement Officer in this country is granted powers and privileges that no other class of people have.

And would someone tell me what powers and privileges those are? I'd really like to know.

I've been wearing a badge now since 1997 and I never knew I was a member of an elite class.

I've always thought--and was TAUGHT, by the way--that I must ensure that the elements of crime--Recklessness, Intent, Criminal Knowledge and Negligence--were present.

I've always been taught that I had to have an articulable "reasonable suspicion" (see Terry v. Ohio, cert. to the Supreme Court, 386 US) to detain a person, and that such detention was effective when a reasonable person no longer felt free to leave.

I've always been taught that I could ONLY effect an arrest when I could articulate probable cause. Probable Cause, as enumerated in the Constitution of the United States, has been defined as "that which would lead a reasonable person (a trained, cautious and prudent law enforcement officer) to believe that a crime is being/has been/will be committed. Such standard of proof lies between reasonable suspicion and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I've always been taught that I am NOT the judge and the jury--it is not up to me to decide punishment or to impose punishment. I am a sworn Officer of the Court, and it is my sworn duty to place those who break the law under arrest, and to bind them over for delivery to the Court, who is the trier of fact.

There is a truth here which MANY of you do not realize.

You have had one or two bad experiences with bad cops--which do exist.

The VAST majority of police officers are NOT crooked, do NOT abuse their authority or commissions, and HATE dirty cops with a passion.

Please try to remember that--and do NOT spout off with how crooked cops are--because most of us AREN'T.

And cameras on guns are VERY stupid. PERIOD.

 

[TAB]

Powderman, since your a LEO, please explain why you think they are very stupid.

And would someone tell me what powers and privileges those are?

carrying a weapon almost anywhere( which is a privlage) able to buy things the general public can't. Just two things that come to mind off the top of my head and are perfect for use here on THR.


eidt while I'm thinking about it... how do you feel about dash cameras?