Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: NY senator pushes for cameras on cop handguns

  1. #1
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    http://wcbstv.com/local/police.handg....2.722036.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.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    How long before we get "Street Judges"?

    Lawgiver II:



    Hell, if life is coing to start imitating art (sci-fi) I want my own holo-suite!




  3. #3
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    N.Y. Senator Pushes For Cameras On Cop Handguns
    Rolls eyes, and shakes head.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    I'd like to hear a detailed description of exactly how this would have cleared up the Sean Bell case. We already know he wasn't armed, so the video would show he... wasn't armed. The video clips that would be taken would be just too out of context to be helpful to the LEOs.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    N.Y. Senator Pushes For Cameras On Cop Handguns

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    It is not going to be a total fix.

    The camera will not see what the officer did prior to the gun being drawn and shots being fired. It would capture everything if his gun was drawn prior to a reason to shoot occurring. So this iis only a half as good.

    It is a nice idea but the video will allow arm chair quarterbackers to review the video frame by frame over a few hours and say "He clearly did not have anything in his hand whenhe pulled out of his jacket and pointed in the direction of the officer!" The officer should have been able to see this tooand not should not have fired.

    Whereas this furtive movement is a threat and the officerdoes not have the luxury of time to waitlong to identifyan empty hand or object before seeing muzzle flash in his direction.

    I doubt that cameras will ever make it on guns.



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    205

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    It is not going to be a total fix.

    The camera will not see what the officer did prior to the gun being drawn and shots being fired. It would capture everything if his gun was drawn prior to a reason to shoot occurring. So this iis only a half as good.

    It is a nice idea but the video will allow arm chair quarterbackers to review the video frame by frame over a few hours and say "He clearly did not have anything in his hand whenhe pulled out of his jacket and pointed in the direction of the officer!" The officer should have been able to see this tooand not should not have fired.

    Whereas this furtive movement is a threat and the officerdoes not have the luxury of time to waitlong to identifyan empty hand or object before seeing muzzle flash in his direction.

    I doubt that cameras will ever make it on guns.

    I think your wrong..

    The bleeding heart liberals want to do EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER to screw the police and help the "underprivileged mugger"

    I completely agree with your analysis that the camera is worthless because a response of a firearm is usually the VERY LAST COURSE OF ACTION and happens so rapidly.

    But I don't think that will stop idiots from ramming it through.. Your next BUG will have a flashlight, camera, laser and only 1 bullet.. Because after all.. the only way to put all that extra gear on a .380 auto or a .38spl revolver is to reduce the number of bullets!

  8. #8
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Why not just put a camera on the LEO's hat? The "haberdash cam!" :P
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Wouldn't it just be easier to surgically implant the cameras in the LEOs' foreheads and a microphone/recorder by their ears? That way we can see and hear what they see and hear and more fairly evaluate their responses. I think that would be the most fair and reasonable way to do things.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    Maybe New York could just get rid of dirty cops. Granted, that would put them at 20% of their current staff levels, but it would be a start... (<-joking)

    Seriously though, how much more crap do officers need to carry? Maybe they need only a pocket-cam, flashlight, cuffs,and a gun. Everyone who's uncontrollable gets shot.
    HA!

    Can you imagine if the camera failed to operate and they could not get the video?

    The people would scream foul and obvious cover up!!!

    The shooting could be completely justified but just the notion that the video could not be produced would quickly be viewed as evil intent to hide the truth.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    The Army is field testing a system that connects troops via audio and video to higher HQ. Why not do this for police? (And legislators, mayors/govs/sens/prez/etc. for that matter?) If they exit their vehicle it should be on the public record. The systems aren't large. The battery would be charging while in the car so it doesn't have to have a shift-long capacity.

    We can record every minute if we wish.
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...fe&colID=1

    How about turning some of the cameras on police / public officials in addition to all of the public-facing security in Amercian cities?

    [img]chrome://piclens/content/launch.png[/img]

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Hmmmm....



  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Can you imagine if the camera failed to operate and they could not get the video?

    The people would scream foul and obvious cover up!!!

    The shooting could be completely justified but just the notion that the video could not be produced would quickly be viewed as evil intent to hide the truth.
    Of course they would. Sort of like a lowly citizen saying "But you honor, the officer did do...".

    It sucks to have the system not be on your side.
    [img]chrome://piclens/content/launch.png[/img]

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    That's eery BobCav - it looks exactly like my skwurl hunt'in outfit!
    [img]chrome://piclens/content/launch.png[/img]

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Jim675 wrote:
    That's eery BobCav - it looks exactly like my skwurl hunt'in outfit!
    You should change your name to Boba-Fet!

  17. #17
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Jim675 wrote:
    The Army is field testing a system that connects troops via audio and video to higher HQ. Why not do this for police? (And legislators, mayors/govs/sens/prez/etc. for that matter?) If they exit their vehicle it should be on the public record. The systems aren't large. The battery would be charging while in the car so it doesn't have to have a shift-long capacity.

    We can record every minute if we wish.
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...fe&colID=1

    How about turning some of the cameras on police / public officials in addition to all of the public-facing security in Amercian cities?

    [img]chrome://piclens/content/launch.png[/img]
    Interesting...

    I watched fox news in 2001 when Army Rangers were doing a raid on a Taliban hideout and they had nightvision cameras with audio attached to their helmets.. It was pretty cool..
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Jim675 wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    Can you imagine if the camera failed to operate and they could not get the video?

    The people would scream foul and obvious cover up!!!

    The shooting could be completely justified but just the notion that the video could not be produced would quickly be viewed as evil intent to hide the truth.
    Of course they would. Sort of like a lowly citizen saying "But you honor, the officer did do...".

    It sucks to have the system not be on your side.
    Not sure what your talking about.

    I am not talking about the camera footage being used against you. I am talking about the cameranot working and then the allegations that would be made due to something beyond the officers control.

    Just the fact that something used to capture the moment "mysteriously did not work" at this important moment.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    I wasn't very clear. :? Lucidity is ebbing toward the end of my work day...

    It seems to manythat usually in courtrooms if all else is equal then the officer's word will carry the day against that of a non-famous citizen. So, in effect, things now are not equal.

    In the future camera-equipped world if the officer did not have his/her incident footage available he/she would beviewed suspiciously, much like a citizen now.

    It is not a comfortable feeling. But I see no reason why the officer should have carte blanche immunity from suspicion. I think the state already has a significant advantage in prosecutions and suspicious police activity does warrant that type of reaction.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Jim675 wrote:
    I wasn't very clear. :? Lucidity is ebbing toward the end of my work day...

    It seems to manythat usually in courtrooms if all else is equal then the officer's word will carry the day against that of a non-famous citizen. So, in effect, things now are not equal.

    In the future camera-equipped world if the officer did not have his/her incident footage available he/she would beviewed suspiciously, much like a citizen now.

    It is not a comfortable feeling. But I see no reason why the officer should have carte blanche immunity from suspicion. I think the state already has a significant advantage in prosecutions and suspicious police activity does warrant that type of reaction.
    Are you saying that if the police observe a crime that their word should not be accepted in court and they should have toprove what they are saying by some other means?

    The officer observesthe violation and he is sworn to tell the truth. The defendant on trial does not swear to anything and cannot be prosecuted for telling a lie.

    Having a video camera on a gun really does nothing but catch the moment just before the shot. If you go with the video alone and discount the officer's version you will still not have the complete details. The camera does not capture everything that is happening or what happened prior to drawing a gun.

    And as I said.... Just like if a video camera in a cruiser or public building..... if the camera ona gun failed it would AUTOMATICALLY give evidence of a police cover up. I believe thatalmost all shootings are viewed by the peopleas unnecessary and they see the cop as wrong.

    The officer is not above suspicion.... he is ALWAYS suspected and scrutinized!!!

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Are you saying that if the police observe a crime that their word should not be accepted in court and they should have toprove what they are saying by some other means?

    I'm saying unless other factors are presented the officer's and the citizen's word should carry exactly equal weight.

    The officer observesthe violation and he is sworn to tell the truth. The defendant on trial does not swear to anything and cannot be prosecuted for telling a lie.

    And millions of people swear "'til death do us part". People are either honorable or not - an oath dosn't make a dishonest person honest or vice versa and neither does a uniform.

    Having a video camera on a gun really does nothing but catch the moment just before the shot. If you go with the video alone and discount the officer's version you will still not have the complete details. The camera does not capture everything that is happening or what happened prior to drawing a gun.

    Which is why I suggested a button (shoulder, helmut, whatever) cam with mic to capture the entire incident.

    And as I said.... Just like if a video camera in a cruiser or public building..... if the camera ona gun failed it would AUTOMATICALLY give evidence of a police cover up. I believe thatalmost all shootings are viewed by the peopleas unnecessary and they see the cop as wrong.

    Again,

    The officer is not above suspicion.... he is ALWAYS suspected and scrutinized!!!
    And the citizen isn't suspected? Of course they are, or why would they be in court wearing that funny jumpsuit?

    I'm not anti-police, even a little. I am very much pro-equality and I think the state has too much power currently.



  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    Why don't we make it easier on officers instead of harder? Because that would require cleaning up government, which isn't happening any time soon. Expect cameras on guns to be a reality in ten years.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    Police lie on the stand, hide evidence, use excessive force, ticket or arrest people for personal beliefs, etc. regularly. The average officer is probably honest, but we know there is a significant number of not-so-honest officers. The trail up the command chain is usually worse, with politicians (who are almost all lawyers) at the top of the scum ladder.

    I think almost all officers go into the profession to make society a better place. Then they find an overwhelming amount of department rules (most of which could be eliminated if common sense was allowed form time to time), quotas (officially called "suggested monthly personal goals") which turm citizens into opportunities, a large amount of alcohol and drug related stupidity, overwhelming hatred for them, etc.

    Then they have on-the-job stress, like when a speeder tries to get away in a high-speed chase, crashes the car and runs, shoots at officers, then gives up when they're exhausted and expects the arrest to be all warm and fuzzy. After the arrest they have a mound of paperwork, possibility public scrutiny, the boss is riding them, etc.

    Now politicians want to add a light, camera, mic., recorder, and batteries to a fast-moving gun, and probably ask the officers to hold perfectly still while aiming too, so the picture isn't streaks and blurrs.

    Why don't we make it easier on officers instead of harder? Because that would require cleaning up government, which isn't happening any time soon. Expect cameras on guns to be a reality in ten years.
    Aye.

    Plus, as I alluded to before, the cameras would provide only a deterrent effect, if that, against excessive force. If an LEO shoots at someone who's unarmed, chances are that he'll hit his target eventually. So while it might prove the LEO was in the wrong, the person at which he shot is still dead. And it can't even legitimately prove whether or not the LEO was in the wrong, as that would require the signal that is exiting the visual region of the brain and entering the processing portion. Humans don't see everything that a camera captures and thus a gun cam would not even accurately describe what the LEO saw in the out-of-context time that the camera is running.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •