TexasCHLforum.com

Anyone else seen this? It was broadcasted on FOX news that departments were investigating placing these on their officers weapons.
http://pistolcam.com/

I cannot imagine departments placing these on their officers weapons.

Would be better if it had a flashlight instead of a useless lazer

Molon_labe wrote:Would be better if it had a flashlight instead of a useless lazer

The camera has both a tactical light and a laser (or neither) which can be set to come on in any combination.

The system shown on Fox looked smaller than the picture in the website, and the man said that they are looking at developing an even smaller size -- I expect no larger than a pisto mounted tactical light alone.

Bob

It might help in some situations, but cameras do not tell the whole story. They show what they show, but they don't show what they don't show (think about it in terms of the Rodney King incident).

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:It might help in some situations, but cameras do not tell the whole story. They show what they show, but they don't show what they don't show (think about it in terms of the Rodney King incident).

- Jim

Yeah that will show the actually shooting but it will not show what lead up to make the LEO have to pull his weapon. I see that as bad for LEOs in most circumstances. But then again I'm not a LEO so what do I know.

Just another can of worms that doesn't need to be opened...

I have a "gut" feeling this is something being floated out there by, dare I say?

Lawyers

If I was one, you bet I'd use the gun camera data to use for or against the "shooter" regardless of the quality of the shoot or the outcome...

It'll help paint a picture of many things regarding the technical aspects of the shoot to jury's that can be swayed easier to the emotional side of the case...

Now, it could be used on the other side of the coin as well, as to prove visually, the justification in the use of deadly force, in regards to if a weapon was present that brings all those issues into giving us the ability to reasonably determine that the use of deadly force was necessary to stop the threat...

The only problem I see is when should the camera begin operation???

Gun cameras on fighter aircraft have been around for a long time...Its purpose was to document what the pilot was actually shooting at when the guns operated...

Obviously this can't happen with handguns or other firearms, because there are a lot of legal things that need to be documented before the gun is pulled and fired, if it is fired at all...

So I see a lot of things that in my opinion is a neat concept, but I do not see it as doing anything but complicating things that can already be determined without leaps and bounds in technology that could also be "spoofed" in various ways...

Just my dos centavos...

The report I heard on Fox news this morning said the camera came on when the gun was drawn....

Heck Let's just equip all LEOs with a cap/head mounted camera that's always on so we can see everthing from their point of view....

They have been rolling these out on Tazers for a while. As with most things they will be looked at with scepticism until they prove their worth.

I have to admit that I am a supporter of cameras for police. I like the dash cameras and fought to get them installed before the state mandated it. I like the Taser cameras, and I like this idea.

Cameras help cops who are doing the right thing. They can prove their innocence of many accusations. One of the best arguments for the cameras was the SCOTUS ruling last year on car chases. If there had not been a dash camera rolling, there is little doubt the ruling would have gone against police.

I prefer Jeremae's idea of a hat-cam--something that points constantly in the line-of-sight. I'd think that would give a much better overall rendition at playback than a gun-mounted camera...and may be less expensive. The biggest problem I see with a gun-cam is that you'll never see what led up to the presentation of the firearm in the first place, and you only see what the gun is pointed at: if an officer has his gun at low-ready several yards from a suspect, you may only see ground, feet, and pants. Seems like it would be far better to capture where the officer's head is pointing, and that would include the moments leading up to the drawing of his gun as well as his scanning for additional threats and what he sees in the moments following reholstering.

As a tax payer I don't want to pay for them. I like Jeremae's suggestion bettter. His hat cam is more apt to keep everyone above board. The hat cam will certainly show when someone crosses the line more effectively then a gun cam showing a muzzle flash.

I feel the same way about this cam as I do about instant replay used by the NFL. I think we can live without either one of them.

I know the hat cam technology is already in use by doormen in UK nightclubs, and surely there are private security personnel using it stateside. I would expect the greater utility (as expressed by Jeremae et al) and probable lower price of the hat cams will probably keep the gun-cam technology in the market fringes.

Yep, if this end up gaining legs and it becomes more and more prevalent in departments around the country...I'd much rather take the firearm camera out of the equation and put them on the body/uniform of the officer...

One twist is that the duty weapon becomes something that is different than what you normally would be carrying otherwise...The weight and balance is different obviously...

You might be able to train and become proficient in both conditions, but seems to me a lot of trouble with a "tool" that needs to be consistent regardless of being on the clock or not...

Just my observation...

I saw the FoxNews story as well after the start of this thread...It still looks like the information/data could be used against an officer, more than it could be used to clear them...

Just my opinion...