Police testing out cameras mounted on duty weapons

**Terminator** · 03-09-08, 04:50 PM

First there were the cameras on the dashboards of patrol cars. Then came cameras on Tasers. And now, cameras mounted on handguns could be the next tool for local police.
Within 30 days as part of a testing program, officers at three New York law enforcement agencies will be equipped with handguns that have miniature cameras called PistolCams mounted on them to record the actions of officers as soon as they draw their weapons.
The pager-size camera, which weighs less than six ounces, will capture up to an hour of video. After the video is about to reach its capacity, the camera will take still photographs.
The video and photographs will be used to show what the officers are facing when they have to draw their weapons, officials said.
"Frequently, officers are falsely accused in shootings," said Terry Gordon, the creator of PistolCam. The camera "will be a friend of the officer by showing what they face."
Within the last few years, cameras on patrol cars' dashboards have become standard.
Some officers have even tested cameras in badges.
And there are cameras being developed to be used on an officer's lapel or belt.
But PistolCam is one of the new and few cameras being tested on an officer's handgun.
"I've never heard of it," said Frank Woodall, the director of curriculum at the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education in Austin. "This is the first I've heard of such a camera. I'd need to find out more about it before I could comment about it."
Richland Hills Police Chief Barbara Childress said officers will probably view using the camera with skepticism.
"You have to do the research, how it benefits the officer, what will be the costs and safety issues," Childress said.
Gordon, a former corrections officer, said PistolCam was developed to help defend officers, not indict them.
The video is encrypted, so it cannot be altered or erased, Gordon said.
The camera, which costs about $695, comes with a special holster, which is equipped with a magnetic strip that automatically activates the camera when the officer draws a weapon.
For SWAT officers, the company also makes a version for rifles.
The Newburgh Police Department, New York State Police and officers with the Orange County Sheriff's County SWAT team in New York will be testing the handguns with mounted cameras.
Gordon said his company will be marketing the camera in Texas within a month.
"Officers were apprehensive when they put cameras on the dashboards of their cars, but they have since come around," Gordon said.
"That's what we hope happens with the PistolCam."
[The camera] will be a friend of the officer by showing what they face.

**Lazy Fed** · 03-09-08, 05:08 PM

Mine would have a bunch of dust on it

**BigDawg** · 03-09-08, 05:51 PM

From what I hear ALL you weapons have dust on them!!!!

**gozling** · 03-09-08, 06:02 PM

I want my duty gun as uncomplicated as possible and besides that...

who is to be the judge of my own judgement and what i perceive may be a threat and what might happen...

like i want a jury of sheep to say i had no right to shoot - because my interpretation of an incident maybe different than theirs?
They aren't present at the moment and who is to say but myself what I need to do to go home.

I went on a call of two guys fighting. When I showed up one was ontop of the other and the guy on top turned and had blood all over his face. I quickly realized that he also had the guys nose in his mouth. He refused two verbal commands so I shot him in the torso (before my taser training). Would I want someone judging my call??? really I wouldn't. There could have been a few other options (possibly) but there was an immediate threat and a victim and I did what I had to do.
If we cant be trusted on our judgement calls because of a few bad people or whatever.. what is the point... just tattoo a fucking camera in our foreheads and run it 24 hours

**Hannah87** · 03-09-08, 06:09 PM

I agree with you Goz

**jmur5074** · 03-09-08, 06:14 PM

A camera can show people who weren't there a lot of things.

But it doesn't convey the sense of urgency and fear that only being there can give a person. It also only records in the direction it's pointed, it doesn't record EVERYTHING.

**Hannibal** · 03-09-08, 06:18 PM

I voted NO. A firearm is designed to do one task; that is to shoot. There should be no other function involved in that tool.

Besides, it would olnly record what happened once someone was in the sight picture, not what led them to get there.

**k-9max** · 03-09-08, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by gozling

I went on a call of two guys fighting. When I showed up one was ontop of the other and the guy on top turned and had blood all over his face. I quickly realized that he also had the guys nose in his mouth. He refused two verbal commands so I shot him in the torso(before my taser training). Would I want someone judging my call??? really I wouldn't. There could have been a few other options (possibly) but there was an immediate threat and a victim and I did what I had to do.

How long after did you get taser training goz?

**gozling** · 03-09-08, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by k-9max

How long after did you get taser training goz?

i was signed up for the next available class immediately...
funny that huh?

**Pudge** · 03-09-08, 09:21 PM

No,

The only thing placed on the gun in my opinion should be a light or any other implement to assist with tactics and/or use of that weapon.

Jmur said it the best, it's only going to be a narrow field of view, and won't catch the situation that led up to the gun being presented.

**Jks9199** · 03-09-08, 09:46 PM

Nor will a camera catch the perceptions of the officer. What I'm trying to say is that the camera is going to only catch what it sees during the moments it's out; it won't see that the guy drew a gun, winged a shot off, and turned away faster than the officer could draw. (The Force Science Institute has done some studies that demonstrate that!) So... all the camera catches is the officer apparently shooting the guy in the back; it doesn't see the beginning that human reaction time couldn't capture.

**LawnMM** · 03-09-08, 10:38 PM

Technology has its place in law enforcement, that place is not on our sidearm.

**MacLean** · 03-09-08, 11:30 PM

The issue with cameras anywhere in law enforcement is simple.

It does not capture the scene from the perspective of the officer.

I saw these cameras at SHOT, and thought they were the most foolish waste of effort I had ever seen.

**armsmaster270** · 03-09-08, 11:36 PM

I don't care how small or light it is it will change how you draw and fire I vote NO

**Wolven** · 03-10-08, 06:17 AM

A camera will only give basically a one dimensional "view" of any situation...it will not take into account many other factors which would be paramount in the officer's decision to pull and possibly use the weapon. I vote a big, fat no.

The camera will never show what is truly going on in a situation.

**Jenna** · 03-10-08, 07:45 AM

Not that I know anything about guns, but this sounds like a bad idea because it might throw the gun off balance, and because it wouldn't capture the circumstances that lead up to the shooting.

But this got me thinking--what about combining a digital camera with a gun, so that you can take pictures with your gun, or shoot people with your digital camera, and not have to carry two different devices? Combining multiple devices into one seems to be the trend these days. Or better yet, add firearm capabilities to the Blackberry, so that you can make and receive phone calls, send and receive faxes and text messages, take, send, and receive photos, make voice recordings, surf the internet, store and access notes, contact, and calendar info, and shoot people, all with one convenient device?

**TXPO710** · 03-10-08, 09:28 AM

I think the people who make stuff like this get kick backs from the holster makers. I'm just getting used to having a light on there, not sure I really want that but I am sure I don't want anything else hanging off my life saver.

**Wolven** · 03-10-08, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Jenna

Not that I know anything about guns, but this sounds like a bad idea because it might throw the gun off balance, and because it wouldn't capture the circumstances that lead up to the shooting.

But this got me thinking--what about combining a digital camera with a gun, so that you can take pictures with your gun, or shoot people with your digital camera, and not have to carry two different devices? Combining multiple devices into one seems to be the trend these days. Or better yet, add firearm capabilities to the Blackberry, so that you can make and receive phone calls, send and receive faxes and text messages, take, send, and receive photos, make voice recordings, surf the internet, store and access notes, contact, and calendar info, and shoot people, all with one convenient device?

Ahhh no thanks Jenna. A gun is a gun and that is all it should be...it has one purpose in my job and that is to protect myself and others. Not to take pictures or receive messages.

**Twan007** · 03-10-08, 10:03 AM

simple concept...

the State trusts me to do my job... that's why it gave me a badge...

shouldn't you follow suit until it's been proven that I can't...

hell, even criminals are innoscent until proven guilty... hate the double standard that is abused for cops...