Record your SD shooting

open4years · May 17, 2010

imported post

I received my "Sportsman Guide" catalog today and I got mad over a new product. Mad that I didn't think of it, make it and patent it!

It is a video camera, light and laser that will fit on standard rails. It is a bit big for a hand gun, if you carried it. But, for a rifle or shotgun it would be okay.

I think the price is too high at $359.97 (Buyer'sClub) or $399.97 if not a member. But if you consider the cost of a light and laser, then a video and still 3.2 MP camera that can record 30 minutes of video, it isn't so high.

That video could be, literally a life saver in court. What better way to show what really happened. Oh, it records audio
too, so there would be evidence that you warned the BG you were going to shoot if he didn't put his gun down. I could easily have made that!!! I'll wait until it's cheaper and smaller. I think...

flagellum · May 19, 2010

imported post

Hmmm, will look into that. Thanks for the tip.

cscitney87 · May 19, 2010

imported post

Wow now that's amazing.

My handgun is on the night stand when I sleep. I would/could/can and will have this on my home defense handgun. For daily carry I will not include it.

Very cool. Very cool

HankT · May 19, 2010

imported post

open4years wrote:

That video could be, literally a life saver in court. What better way to show what really happened. Oh, it records audio
too, so there would be evidence that you warned the BG you were going to shoot if he didn't put his gun down.

It would be GREAT for a properly handled self defense shooting.

But couldn't that video/audio also be evidence of a so-called bad-shoot if it were to be one?

Let's say the defender/shooter said some, uh, inappropriate stuff....or the shootee is recorded as being unarmed..giving up...or trying to run away....et.c

I'm not against this recorder. I think that the more recording that goes on of attacks, arrests, shootings, the better it is, generally.

But it would be incumbent upon the user/shooter to mind his p's and q's while he and his target were being recorded. Actually, that's a GREAT thing too.

Snakemathis · May 19, 2010

imported post

HankT wrote:

open4years wrote:

That video could be, literally a life saver in court. What better way to show what really happened. Oh, it records audio
too, so there would be evidence that you warned the BG you were going to shoot if he didn't put his gun down.

Click to expand...

It would be GREAT for a properly handled self defense shooting.

But couldn't that video/audio also be evidence of a so-called bad-shoot if it were to be one?

Let's say the defender/shooter said some, uh, inappropriate stuff....or the shootee is recorded as being unarmed..giving up...or trying to run away....et.c

I'm not against this recorder. I think that the more recording that goes on of attacks, arrests, shootings, the better it is, generally.

But it would be incumbent upon the user/shooter to mind his p's and q's while he and his target were being recorded. Actually, that's a GREAT thing too.

I agree. I hope this is used to catch "bad-shoots" as well as the good ones. If someone misuses a firearm and hurts someone, or worse, they deserve to be charged as well. Everyone deserves a fair chance, so hopefully this will help everyone involved in a possible shooting scenario.

open4years · May 19, 2010

imported post

HankT wrote:

open4years wrote:

That video could be, literally a life saver in court. What better way to show what really happened. Oh, it records audio
too, so there would be evidence that you warned the BG you were going to shoot if he didn't put his gun down.

Click to expand...

It would be GREAT for a properly handled self defense shooting.

But couldn't that video/audio also be evidence of a so-called bad-shoot if it were to be one?

Let's say the defender/shooter said some, uh, inappropriate stuff....or the shootee is recorded as being unarmed..giving up...or trying to run away....et.c

I'm not against this recorder. I think that the more recording that goes on of attacks, arrests, shootings, the better it is, generally.

But it would be incumbent upon the user/shooter to mind his p's and q's while he and his target were being recorded. Actually, that's a GREAT
thing too.

It is YOUR recorder on your gun. If the shooting didn't go well and you think the recorder will hurt you, then remove it from your firearm and don't even tell LE about it. Erasing might be good too, in case your house was searched. If the find it, you can say you didn't have it on your gun when the shooting took place. You are not sworn in, so you don't have to give LE evidence that can hurt you.

This would be great for a home SD weapon and I'm giving it thought. I doubt you will ever find a holster though. I'm certain that this product can be made much smaller in the future. Think how great it would be for LE, etc.

okboomer · May 19, 2010

imported post

My X-taser has a video camera on it ... it is just a matter of time before this is standard on LEO ... BTW - how's that LEO Camera experiment going? SanFran wasn't it?

HankT · May 20, 2010

imported post

open4years wrote:

HankT wrote:

open4years wrote:

That video could be, literally a life saver in court. What better way to show what really happened. Oh, it records audio
too, so there would be evidence that you warned the BG you were going to shoot if he didn't put his gun down.

Click to expand...

It would be GREAT for a properly handled self defense shooting.

But couldn't that video/audio also be evidence of a so-called bad-shoot if it were to be one?

Let's say the defender/shooter said some, uh, inappropriate stuff....or the shootee is recorded as being unarmed..giving up...or trying to run away....et.c

I'm not against this recorder. I think that the more recording that goes on of attacks, arrests, shootings, the better it is, generally.

But it would be incumbent upon the user/shooter to mind his p's and q's while he and his target were being recorded. Actually, that's a GREAT
thing too.

Click to expand...

It is YOUR recorder on your gun. If the shooting didn't go well and you think the recorder will hurt you, then remove it from your firearm and don't even tell LE about it. Erasing might be good too, in case your house was searched. If the find it, you can say you didn't have it on your gun when the shooting took place. You are not sworn in, so you don't have to give LE evidence that can hurt you.

"If the shooting didn't go well....remove....evidence...."

Uhm, that sounds....unethical. Probably illegal, too, O4Y.

If you have it operating on the gun in an actual SD shooting and decide afterward that you don't want to have its contents known, you pretty much have to give it up. Else, you'll be illegally withholding evidence.

Lying about it, which you seem to be suggesting, O4Y, would be verrrrry chancey. Destroying the evidence would be legally problematic, too. I don't think it's a good idea to be suggesting that kind of behavior on the forum, O4Y.

open4years wrote:

This would be great for a home SD weapon and I'm giving it thought. I doubt you will ever find a holster though. I'm certain that this product can be made much smaller in the future. Think how great it would be for LE, etc.

I agree that the holster design is a problem. But the size of camera recorders is getting smaller and smaller. Just check out the ones we have on our cell phones. And if it would be great for LE, the same or similar reasons would be present for it being great for gun using citizens. Far off into the future, I could see someone proposing a reasonable regulation that it be mandatory on LAC carry guns.

Even before that proposal is made, if I could get one small and unobtrusive enough on a gun that I carry, at a reasonable price,I'd definitely consider buying one. I'd be willing to pay more for it, of course since it would provide some insurance against some unexpected and negative circumstances.

Superlite27 · May 20, 2010

imported post

Just my first reaction (I'll have to apply conscious thought to this before I make a concrete opinion) but........

...If there isn't a viable threat, shouldn't the firearm remain in it's holster, therefore, recording nothing?

If there is a threat, you're going to draw, and most likely fire. (after all, there is a threat to your life, right?)

Wouldn't this mean the only video captured is going to be a gun barrel perspective of shooting and possibly killing a person with no frame of reference?

The video the jury sees:

Camera on. Guy with his hand behind his back. "BANG!" Guy falling down with a hole in his chest.

Yup. A 5 second point of view video of you plugging some guy in the chest.

How does this benefit you?

Funny, the video of the guy yelling "I'm going to kill you!" from his car that he's blocked you in with, the part where he pounds on your wife's passenger window, and the part where he screams "You're all dead!" as he runs around the back of your car, and the fact that you see a.357 stuck into his back pocket all seem to be missing from the video. (Probably because you're still in your car with the gun in your holster.) As you step out of your car and draw your weapon, you turn your video camera on just as he reaches for that .357 you've seen.

What will the jury get to see again?

CarryOpen · May 20, 2010

imported post

None of us is going to have the ideal shoot we all expect. Even if you are involved in a totally righteous shoot, do you really want to produce video evidence that "can and will be used against you"? What if you say things that you shouldn't say? What if you recall the shoot differently than the recorder does? You don't have the same protections police officers have when you're involved in a shooting. I would not want a record of it. At the very least, you could end up with a video that is used to "prove" that you were "looking for a fight to record".

flagellum · May 20, 2010

imported post

I think for a home defense weapon, this would be good. If you hear something happen, you will grab your weapon and check your house. The camera will catch anything that the light is pointing at (basically what you are looking at.) I think it could be a lifesaver. And on the off-chance that your shooting was completely unjustified, then you would get what you deserve, assuming you don't destory/hide the tape.

Carnivore · May 20, 2010

imported post

A dead body laying in my livingroom floor in the middle of the night is all the evidence i need, Armed or not !!

1245A Defender · May 22, 2010

imported post

It is YOUR recorder on your gun. If the shooting didn't go well and you think the recorder will hurt you, then remove it from your firearm and don't even tell LE about it. Erasing might be good too, in case your house was searched. If the find it, you can say you didn't have it on your gun when the shooting took place. You are not sworn in, so you don't have to give LE evidence that can hurt you.

"If the shooting didn't go well....remove....evidence...."

Uhm, that sounds....unethical. Probably illegal, too, O4Y.

If you have it operating on the gun in an actual SD shooting and decide afterward that you don't want to have its contents known, you pretty much have to give it up. Else, you'll be illegally withholding evidence.

Lying about it, which you seem to be suggesting, O4Y, would be verrrrry chancey. Destroying the evidence would be legally problematic, too. I don't think it's a good idea to be suggesting that kind of behavior on the forum, O4Y.

what ever you recorded, with your gun-cam, is your evidence to disclose or not, let your lawyer decide how much testimony you will give to the cops, to be used against you!

Superlite27 · May 22, 2010

imported post

The more I think about this, the more my initial reaction gets confirmed.

You have the right to remain silent. Any word you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

"Any word you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

So......anything you say will be used against you. Therefore, it is a reasonable inference that nothing you say will be used for you.

Why would video be any different? However, video is not speech. There is no "right to not have this taken from you." (It's evidence) It will definatelybe seized, and it will be used against you regardless of how you feel about it.

What was on this video again? Oh yeah.Just a 5 second clip of you shooting a guy.

How much footage did you record of his actions that justified this? Oh yeah. NONE. After all, your gun was in its holster until you needed it, correct?

I haven't received an answer as to how a 5 second clip of you shooting a man will help your defense at trial.

If it benefits me to exercise my right to remain silent, how does it benefit me to provide a video that will be used against me without the recourse of remaining silent? Any anser to this one?

After rational thought: gun barrel video = bad idea

WheelGun · May 22, 2010

imported post

Erasing the video would be destroying evidence. Period.

All of the threats and violence leading up to you pointing the gun at someone would be gone.

How do you interview witnesses.... point your gun at them and shout "camera rolling... action!"

eye95 · May 22, 2010

imported post

Superlite27 wrote:

"Any word you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

So......anything you say will be used against you. Therefore, it is a reasonable inference that nothing you say will be used for you.

What you say cannot be used for you. It is hearsay. It can only be used against you.

open4years · May 22, 2010

imported post

HankT wrote:

open4years wrote:

HankT wrote:

open4years wrote:

That video could be, literally a life saver in court. What better way to show what really happened. Oh, it records audio
too, so there would be evidence that you warned the BG you were going to shoot if he didn't put his gun down.

Click to expand...

It would be GREAT for a properly handled self defense shooting.

But couldn't that video/audio also be evidence of a so-called bad-shoot if it were to be one?

Let's say the defender/shooter said some, uh, inappropriate stuff....or the
shootee is recorded as being unarmed..giving up...or trying to run away....et.c

I'm not against this recorder. I think that the more recording that goes on of attacks, arrests, shootings, the better it is, generally.

But it would be incumbent upon the user/shooter to mind his p's and q's while he and his target were being recorded. Actually, that's a GREAT
thing too.

Click to expand...

It is YOUR recorder on your gun. If the shooting didn't go well and you think the recorder will hurt you, then remove it from your firearm and don't even tell LE about it. Erasing might be good too, in case your house was searched. If the find it, you can say you didn't have it on your gun when the shooting took place. You are not sworn in, so you don't have to give LE evidence that can hurt you.

Click to expand...

"If the shooting didn't go well....remove....evidence...."[/

Uhm, that sounds....unethical. Probably illegal, too, O4Y.

If you have it operating on the gun in an actual SD shooting and decide afterward that you don't want to have its contents known, you pretty much have to give it up. Else, you'll be illegally withholding evidence.

Lying about it, which you seem to be suggesting, O4Y, would be verrrrry chancey. Destroying the evidence would be legally problematic, too. I don't think it's a good idea to be suggesting that kind of behavior on the forum, O4Y.

open4years wrote:

This would be great for a home SD weapon and I'm giving it thought. I
doubt you will ever find a holster though. I'm certain that this product can be made much smaller in the future. Think how great it would be for LE, etc.

Click to expand...

I agree that the holster design is a problem. But the size of camera recorders is getting smaller and smaller. Just check out the ones we have on our cell phones. And if it would be great for LE, the same or similar reasons would be present for it being great for gun using citizens. Far off into the future, I could see someone proposing a reasonable regulation that it be mandatory on LAC carry guns.

Even before that proposal is made, if I could get one small and
unobtrusive enough on a gun that I carry, at a reasonable price, I'd definitely consider buying one. I'd be willing to pay more for it, of course since it would provide some insurance against some unexpected and negative circumstances.

I knew someone would mention the legalities of removing the recorder. I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on tv, but If no LE asks if you recorded the shooting, don't you have the right to present the recording to your attorney only? Then he/she can decide if it helps or hurts your case.

You could exercise your right to keep your mouth shut and let your attorney do the talking. If you are not asked for any evidence besides your verbal account, would you be with holding evidence? I could see if you were asked in court, yes you should say you have more evidence.

Any trial attorneys in the house? :banghead:

steveinNEPA · May 22, 2010

imported post

Superlite27 wrote:

Just my first reaction (I'll have to apply conscious thought to this before I make a concrete opinion) but........

...If there isn't a viable threat, shouldn't the firearm remain in it's holster, therefore, recording nothing?

If there is a threat, you're going to draw, and most likely fire. (after all, there is a threat to your life, right?)

Wouldn't this mean the only video captured is going to be a gun barrel perspective of shooting and possibly killing a person with no frame of reference?

The video the jury sees:

Camera on. Guy with his hand behind his back. "BANG!" Guy falling down with a hole in his chest.

Yup. A 5 second point of view video of you plugging some guy in the chest.

How does this benefit you?

Funny, the video of the guy yelling "I'm going to kill you!" from his car that he's blocked you in with, the part where he pounds on your wife's passenger window, and the part where he screams "You're all dead!" as he runs around the back of your car, and the fact that you see a.357 stuck into his back pocket all seem to be missing from the video. (Probably because you're still in your car with the gun in your holster.) As you step out of your car and draw your weapon, you turn your video camera on just as he reaches for that .357 you've seen.

What will the jury get to see again?

I agree with this post 100%. In THEORY this camera and all is a great idea and will probably make someone rich, BUT this post kinda nails it on the head...

1245A Defender · May 22, 2010

imported post

so whats the difference now that most responsible open carriers are wearing audio/vidio
recorders when they are out and about anyways.
are you thinking that they have to automaticly turn that over to the police to be used against them.
if you record an event, keep your mouth shut, get your lawyer and follow his advice!!
their is also that pesky 5th amendment that says you cant be compelled to be a witness against yourself!!!
look it up!!

Superlite27 · May 22, 2010

imported post

1245A Defender wrote:

so whats the difference now that most responsible open carriers are wearing audio/vidio
recorders when they are out and about anyways.

The only difference is that the individual performing the action to be analyzed under scrutiny is different.

With your gun barrel recording, YOU are being scrutinized.

With your audio/video recorder used in police interactions THEY are being scrutinized.

Both have the same purpose: to provide recorded evidence to be used against the scrutinizedindividual if neccessary.

This is why officers are often uncomfortable being recorded during encounters....they know the deal. Their actions will be able to be held under a microscope at a later time.

Now, why would I want to create something allowingmy own actions to be analyzed under a microscope? Especially one that, most likely, failsto contain any mitigating circumstances regarding my actions?

The only thing this "gun camera" will allow you to do is shoot yourself in the foot.

This would be an entirely different story if the recording device were able to record the entire encounter, therefore, provide context and possible justification for your actions. Sort of like dash cameras in squad cars. (Although, this isn't always the case: Ask Officer White in Ohio.) Placing the camera on an item you are only going to use for the very instant you need to employ it?........

........Bad "cinematography". It can only work against you.

Record your SD shooting

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member