• 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

Jim675

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

Pointman

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
, ,
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.
 

imperialism2024

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