• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NY senator pushes for cameras on cop handguns

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

http://wcbstv.com/local/police.handgun.cameras.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.
 

BobCav

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
2,798
Location
No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
imported post

How long before we get "Street Judges"?

Lawgiver II:

lawgive2.jpg


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

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
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.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
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.
 

psmartin

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
205
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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!
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
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.
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
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=a-digital-life&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?

launch.png
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
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.
launch.png
 

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
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=a-digital-life&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?

launch.png

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.. :cool:
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
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.
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
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.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
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!!!
 
Top