Camera on police guns

[jbirds1210]

http://wcbstv.com/local/police.handgun. ... 22036.html

N.Y. Senator Pushes For Cameras On Cop Handguns
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) ― In a flash, a police officer draws a handgun from its holster. Less than two seconds later, a red laser and bright light shine at whatever is in the gun barrel's path while a mini-camera records it all.

That's how mini-cams on police handguns would work under a proposal gaining support in New York, which would be the first state in the nation to require the technology. State police were briefed on the technology and are reviewing it for a possible pilot program, said Michael Balboni, the state's deputy secretary for public safety.

The device could create a critical visual and audio record of police shootings for use in court, said state Sen. Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat and former police officer. He is drumming up support for testing the cameras with the state police SWAT squad.

Adams said recordings from the $695 cameras couldn't be altered by a police officer and would quell many questions after controversial police shootings, like the deaths in New York City of Amadou Diallo in 1999 and Sean Bell in 2006.

"That's definitely a new thing," said Meredith Mays of the International Association of Chiefs of Police based in Virginia. She said police have known the technology existed, but no state has required it.

Some police departments have put cameras on Tasers in the last couple years, but there is no major national effort by police to seek or block gun cameras at the federal level, according to the National Association of Police Organizations, a major lobbyist.

"We believe the state of New York can lead the country," said Adams, who retired after 21 years as a New York police officer. "There no longer can be a question mark that lingers after shootings."

Adams, who was never involved in a shooting, said the lights on the 5-ounce camera could be turned off if they would expose the officer to danger in a dark area. But the camera and optional audio recorder would remain operating for up to 60 minutes.

He said the images would also help identify suspects who get away. He wants a pilot program that would allow testing by police at shooting ranges. That could lead to a law mandating the gun cameras, he said.

Adams knows many police won't embrace the idea at first.
There was no immediate comment from the police department and police officers union in New York City. Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office said it will review any legislation that comes from Adams' effort.

But in Albany, there is growing support.

Republican Sen. Dale Volker of Erie County, a former police officer who would be critical to passing the Democrat-backed bill, already sought funding for a pilot program. But that $300,000 request to test the technology in state police SWAT squads was cut in the budget this spring as part of efforts to close a deficit of about $5 billion.

"You have to understand, particularly in urban areas today, it is not like the old days when if someone was shot you went before a grand jury," said Volker. Today, he said, an officer would also face intense media and community attention.

"It's a different world," he said. "It's not even a matter of right and wrong a lot of times. It's that people decide very often whatever you did was probably wrong."

In the Democrat-led Assembly, Adams and his colleagues in the influential black, Hispanic and Asian caucus like the idea.
The gun camera is made by Legend Technologies, based in the Adirondack mountains town of Keesville, N.Y.

(© 2008 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

[jbirds1210]

Please note that the camera would begin recording in about two seconds What does a recording of the aftermath of a deadly shooting provide?

Two seconds......that is eternity and sounds like it would cut out any event leading up to deadly force.

I really hope that a senator's claim to fame does not result in a goofy camera that causes a weapon to malfunction (as is the case with many weapon lights that weigh less)

Jason

[John]

The device could create a critical visual and audio record of police shootings for use in court, said state Sen. Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat and former police officer. He is drumming up support for testing the cameras with the state police SWAT squad.

Or likely more used in the law suit against the department or officer, wouldn't you think? Just seems like a bad idea. Police are filmed in their car, by the public when they are doing their job, by red light cameras (in another thread) and now by their weapon. If you look hard enough, you will find something to hold against them. Maybe we should just implant them with chips and forehead cams and have someone monitor them at all times. Could use an electrical impulse to stop them from a far if they pull their weapon in a situation that the monitor disagree with. don't shoot him.

Sorry... I find this idea really frustratingly stupid.

[KinnyLee]

"We believe the state of New York can lead the country," said Adams"

Yeah, leading this country to its doom. I wish New York would fall off the face of this earth along with California.

[Emmett]

I don't think this would be a good idea at all. Police Officers have enough to worry about during a regular shift on the streets. Another camera, especially one on there weapon would be in my opinion a huge distraction to them. One that in my opinion, could lead to Police Offecers hesitating for the split second it takes for them to get shot and posibly killed. There are enough cameras, and eyes on our LEO already, they do not need any additional distractions on an already stressful enough job.
how would we like to have a camera pointing at us all day doing our jobs, weather it be in a cubical or driveing or what ever. It would be hard to consentrate 100% on what you have to be doing.
Just my .02 worth.

Emmett

[DoubleActionCHL]

While having a camera on a cash register make help keep a clerk honest, I believe a camera on a gun is going to get officers killed. In a high stress situation, they'll likely forget to turn off the lights, making them a sitting duck in the dark. It's also quite possible that they'll become self-conscious about every move and every word being recorded, and fail to act when they should have. I'm not saying that the cops would normally act improperly, but the threat of losing their job for making a procedural mistake could cause the officer to hesitate just long enough to get shot by his suspect.

[DoubleJ]

While having a camera on a cash register make help keep a clerk honest, I believe a camera on a gun is going to get officers killed. In a high stress situation, they'll likely forget to turn off the lights, making them a sitting duck in the dark. It's also quite possible that they'll become self-conscious about every move and every word being recorded, and fail to act when they should have. I'm not saying that the cops would normally act improperly, but the threat of losing their job for making a procedural mistake could cause the officer to hesitate just long enough to get shot by his suspect.

not any more than a TLR Streamlight TacLight (or whatever). def would require some training to get all the officers used to the idea.
wonder if Glock had anything to do with this, cause you'd need a TacRail on yer gun for sure!
in that other thread about this topic, wasn't it suggested that the same anxiety was felt about Dash cameras, which have, over time, turned out to save more cops than implicate?

[DoubleActionCHL]

wasn't it suggested that the same anxiety was felt about Dash cameras, which have, over time, turned out to save more cops than implicate?

Except that we're talking about two very different situations. Dash camera's record everything. They're on all the time and easy to forget, as we've seen from many, many videos. The gun-cam, on the other hand, is only active in the most intense, life-threatening situations. To me, it's just one more thing to distract the officer when his life is on the line.

[DoubleJ]

uh, not the one's I have seen. my associate that works 'roun these parts has two dash-cam systems. one's a tape system, and only turns on when the overhead lights come on. the other is the digital one. and it is recording all the time, but it only stores the 15 (maybe 30) seconds before the lights come on, and if the cruiser reaches a certain speed.
but I understand what you're saying. we're used to dash cams, whereas we are not used to gun cams. I just don't see a difference. you could get used to it.
besides, there could be a real market for all those gun cam "snuff films" now I'm kidding.

[DoubleActionCHL]

uh, not the one's I have seen. my associate that works 'roun these parts has two dash-cam systems. one's a tape system, and only turns on when the overhead lights come on. the other is the digital one. and it is recording all the time, but it only stores the 15 (maybe 30) seconds before the lights come on, and if the cruiser reaches a certain speed.
but I understand what you're saying. we're used to dash cams, whereas we are not used to gun cams. I just don't see a difference. you could get used to it.
besides, there could be a real market for all those gun cam "snuff films" now I'm kidding.

By "all the time", I mean from the beginning to end of a traffic stop or other encounter; not literally all the time.

Other than training for it, I don't believe most officers draw their weapons enough to get "used to it." Secondly, the logistics just seems silly. The recording starts 2 seconds after the weapon is drawn? In a crisis situation, it is completely reasonable that the officer will draw and fire in about 1 to 1.5 seconds. Is this some "wink-wink, nod-nod" way of saying they're complying with the nannies, but inserting a safeguard so most shootings will not be recorded?

[Cuda]

Wonder if Hillarious had anything to do with this. I Grew up in New York, lucky for me it was upstate and not the city. The City is way to liberal and I was very ashamed when Hillary was elected to represent N.Y. We need to remember this type of stuff in November. I for one think its not very thought out. You lose the whole reason why a cop had to draw his weapon.

[srothstein]

Well, let me give you my perspective on it. We already have them and it is actually not a bad idea for the police officer. I restrict it to police officers because they are under an entirely different system than any citizen is. They are employed by the government and carrying on governmental authority.

I think they got the idea from Taser who sells a camera attachment for their tool. This has been proven to work, so the technology is already out there. This does not affect the functionality of the weapon, depending on how it is attached. The Taser camera system attaches to the butt of the weapon, so I think the camera could be made to attach there also. I don't see any need for the red light laser or a flash on the camera since Taser seems to get theirs to work as a low light camera without this. It is also instant on, not a two second delay.

My history with cameras for police work is that they are great tools. The police officers who don't trust them distrust the administration. They also generally know they are likely to be doing something wrong. The cops who like cameras see them more as protection from false claims, as I do.

I recognize that the video may not be complete. As long as the lawyers and administrators know the gun pistol cannot possibly capture the whole incident, the camera will not hurt me.

I would rather see a pocket camera system that records what I am seeing for the whole incident and has a sound recording system in it, but I am not afraid of cameras on duty.

But here is my objection to the system. Once the system is proven for police there will be a move towards putting them on all guns. This would be an infringement of the rights of the citizens who are not government employees. If you want one, fine, but you should not be forced to have one.

Anyone who wants to fight this concept on the slippery slope principle, I will support and agree with. If you try to fight it on the danger to the officer, I will point out the problems with the argument and predict that you will lose. I cannot see the danger since there is no danger with other camera systems, including the Taser system.

[Sangiovese]

I'm guessing that in most circumstances, police officers do not fire within 2 seconds of drawing their weapon.

In most cases they challenge the target and order them to freeze, drop it, whatever...

I think that the cameras would very likely miss everything that happened in the critical few seconds before the officer pulls the trigger (i.e. all the things that lead to his decision to fire) and would only capture the shooting itself.

Even if it started recording the instant the weapon was drawn... it still will miss everything that lead up to the officer's decision to draw a weapon (and they don't just go whippin' out their pistolas for no reason).

In the vast majority of situations, this will do NOTHING to help determine if a shooting was justified.

If New York wants to video monitor their LEOs, then they need to come up with some sort of head or shoulder mounted camera that is always on. It could record in a 45-60 minute loop just like cockpit voice recorders... the daily grind would not be important and would be recorded over. If an incident occurred, the recording could be pulled.

In order to judge an officer's actions, we need to be able to see and hear EVERYTHING that he saw and heard leading up to his actions - not a snapshot that starts long after the critical decisions have already been made.

[jimlongley]

Wonder if Hillarious had anything to do with this. I Grew up in New York, lucky for me it was upstate and not the city. The City is way to liberal and I was very ashamed when Hillary was elected to represent N.Y. We need to remember this type of stuff in November. I for one think its not very thought out. You lose the whole reason why a cop had to draw his weapon.

I grew up in upstate NY also, and was ashamed that Bobby Kennedy was elected, and Daniel Moynihan, and each of the other foreign exchange senators that NY sponsors from time to time, not being able to find anyone on the Democrat side that can beat a Republican in the state.

Hilly is just another example - most of the previous have been from MA or NJ, but she's from IL (no, not AR, that was just a temporary stop for her, if Willie's career hadn't taken her where she wanted it to she would have gone back to IL) and that makes the presidential race all the more disgusting.

On the subject of the thread, I agree with the aftermath assessment - I am not a particularly fast draw, but in IDPA I was able to - regularly - go from draw to at least my first shot in less than a second and a half.

[Glock 23]

all in all, just sounds like another excuse to inflate the city budget.
Problem is, alot of the money probably wont be going for what its "proposed" intention was (gun cameras).

but seriously, we expect SO much from law enforcement, is this really a big thing?
They get polygraphed! I mean, is a gun camera any more intrusive than that?