N.Y. Senator Pushes For Cameras On Cop Handguns

[Howzit]

http://wcbstv.com/local/police.handgun.cameras.2.722036.html

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.

"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."


How many questionable shootings by cops have we seen in the last 10 years? Maybe this tool will make some cops a little less trigger-happy, while exonerating those cops falsely accused of using unjustified force.

[happyslug]

1. And provide a blurry picture with no context.

I would prefer a camera to the officer helmet, that shows me all that the Officer saw EVEN BEFORE HE PULLED HIS GUN.

Some examples:


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549524-REG/V_I_O__POV1_POV_1_Digital_Helmet_Camera.html


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/470832-REG/Elmo_97786_SUV_CAM_Helmet_Camera_System.html



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/537033-REG/Twenty20_1100_VholdR_Helmet_Mount_Action.html

Other Retailers:
http://www.twenty20camera.com/helmetcamera.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet_camera

At the highest resolution they only last 1.5 hours, which is the level they should be used at, but can last up to 10 hours at lowest resolutions (on a 2.0 GB SD card).

[Howzit]

2. Good point. How would the camera be activated? n/t

[happyslug]

3. The camera goes 1.5 hours with a 2.0 GB SD card

B&H sells a 8 GB SD card for $80 which means at the highest level it will last 6 hours.
B&H sells a 16 GB SD card for $160.00, which means 12 hours of recording at the highest Resolution.
There may be limitations as to how long the Camera can put data into the SD card, but just data to show larger SD cards are available. Especially given, as seen below, battery usage is NOT a problem for most normal police functions (i.e. batteries last more than 8 hours at a time).

Thus I would have the camera on all day long, with the SD card being turned in every day (and a copy made for the officer to keep for his records). Transfers from the card to a hard drive is not that difficult and could be done at the end of every shift. If I was a Police Officers I would think about doing it on my own for my own records, to CYA myself.

The last one I picture the "Twenty20 Holder Helmet Mount Action" goes 16 hours on one 9 volt battery (Through it had no ability to re-watch what happened).

The more expensive Elmo I can NOT see any time its batteries may last:
http://www.elmousa.com/presentation/email_signup.html

The First one I showed, the Vio-pov, last ten hours if you use lithium AA batteries:
http://www.vio-pov.com/
http://www.vio-pov.com/productsPOV.1.php?pr=&xc=0&login=&mem=&xid=319d6683e4996b98f2953f94ef92a2d2&ct=di#hw4

My point is all are capable of ALL DAY USE ON THE HELMET or other hard surface. I like the idea of a helmet for you can also attach a light to the helmet if it is dark (or even a night sight light if desired).

[krispos42]

5. I don't think it would be a blurry picture

A couple-three years ago one of the big-name riflescope makers made a rifle scope that would take a picture through the scope so you could see exactly where the crosshairs were when the gun discharged.

The trick of it was that it was activated by recoil. It took pictures continually, and when it detected recoil, it would save the picture from like a quarter of a second before the recoil was detected, so the picture was sharp and clear.


The helmet idea might be good for SWAT teams. In fact, it's probably an excellent idea for SWAT teams.

Probably at some point it will trickle down to regular beat officers.

[happyslug]

6. Remember the average police shooting is two shots.

Now we have heard of the 30-40 shots cases but those are rare, in most cases the Officer pulls his or her gun from its holster and then shoots. It is one fast movement, done more do to training and practice then any prior thinking (Thus why training is important, you will do as you are trained to do in stressful situations, for that is what you have internalized to do in such situations). Thus my fear of a blurry picture, as the gun goes from the holster to the firing position and then fired, all is less then a second. That is the typical police shooting and given the lens on this mini-camera, more chance of a blurry picture then you can think. Remember all of these small cameras have very poor lens for taking god pictures. The F value is quite high for all are "wide angle" lens, for that gives the longest depth of field (at the lost of picture quality).

Now I do NOT expect movie quality pictures, but at least something that shows me what happened, not another source of speculation. Thus you are stuck with high F value lens for they need minimum amount of focusing, but also provide minimum picture quality. Notice I avoid the issue of electronics, which I expect to improve over the next few years, the real restriction is the lens, whose limitations have been know for over 100 years (If not 150 years). Thus I prefer a stable picture platform, and that is a helmet or other solid object that minimize the movement of the Camera. The arms in a gun pulling situation is to fast for the lens involved (and that may be any lens). Now once in a firing position the camera on the pistol would be stable and provide a good picture platform, my concern is the motion to get the weapon into that firing position AND what happened BEFORE the pistol is even pulled.

Side Note: F value is the ratio of how wide a lens can open over its length. The smaller the F number the wider the lens can open and thus the better quality the picture in poor light conditions. The problem is as f Values decline in value for a set size of lens, the cost of the lens increase in price. For example a 50 mm lens with an f value of 1.4 can cost twice as much as a 50 mm lens with a f value of just 1.7 (And action photographers will pay the difference for the lower f value). Most point and shoot cameras are 2.5 or higher F Value (I Noticed the F Value of the lens used in thee camera are NOT mentioned, tells you the makers are NOT proud of the len's F value).

[sir pball]

7. Just to be a complete pedant

It's "f" not "F"...I think F is absolute aperture, I know it has a specific and different meaning. At any rate, on a camera like that you'd want a large aperture, 1.4 or so. The super-short focal length would take care of focus problems, anything farther away than a foot or so would be sharp; the wide aperture would allow maximum brightness for use in low-light situations. Probably still need NV capability though, just to be safe.

But I agree 100%, a head-cam is a damned good idea...I've heard of bouncers wearing them for the same CYA.

[happyslug]

9. My point most of those camera have f lens of 2.5 of higher

Still, given the other limitations of the Camera good enough for most purposes, and better then no pictures in most situations. I like the helmet camera for it can show what happen BEFORE the gun was pulled. The only advantage a gun camera would have is if the gun is fired when the firer is NOT looking down the barrel of the gun (i.e. accidentally discharge or bad gun handling). Hopefully those are kept to a minimum and no one get hurt do to such non-intentional (I hope) gun firing, but the main thrust of the camera with a gun is when the gun is being used as it was intended, i.e. with the officer looking down the barrel of the pistol. In such situation the helmet camera will provide more reference a to why the officer pulled the gun (or why he or she should NOT have pulled the gun).

[sir pball]

10. Agree 100%

As long as you can get a recognizable image out of it, and audio (very important!), I really couldn't care less about the technical details...just being annoyingly picky (btw, the cams you posted are all f/2 lenses ;)). I think the head-cam is a vastly better idea than a gun-cam, it's a much more proven technology, a lot less intrusive (least I wouldn't want to handle a pistol with one of those giant boxes on it), and it would pretty much require officers to wear helmets which couldn't be a bad thing.

[TPaine7]

4. Awesome idea!!!!!!

Brilliant!

I would add a mike or mikes that would be automatically activated when he drew his weapon.

It might save more than a few unarmed black men's lives in the Bronx.

[ManiacJoe]

8. Good idea, bad implementation.

The gun is not always pointed in the direction of the needed views (especially if their training is being followed). Plus it adds weight and bulk to the gun in a way that makes it less accurate for humans to fire.

The better approach is to add the camera to the headgear of the cops. This way we see what the cop sees before, during, and after the shooting.

[old mark]

11. I really hate this idea...

...but the mic and camera on the officer somewhere is much better.
Look at what is being revealed by the cameras in patrol cars.

I'll bet the cops will hate it, find ways to defeat it.

mark

[Jack_DeLeon]

12. I definately agree the camera on the cops not on the gun.

The cop is the one that is responsible not the gun. I would see this as just the logical evolution of the dashboard camera.

[iverglas]

13. good god, that's really not even believable

I definately agree the camera on the cops not on the gun.
The cop is the one that is responsible not the gun.

I mean, and just for starters, the camera would apparently be "on" the gun in the sense of physically ON the gun.

Not trained on or focused on the gun, in which case your utterly ludicrous intervention here might at least have made some sense, conceptually if not, like, really.

Seems to me that a camera showing what is being shot at, i.e. a camera on the firearm, would be a lot more useful than a camera showing the ceiling above what was being shot at, if a cop decided to tilt his/her head back while shooting ...

But really. I think this post qualifies as the most utterly loony thing I have ever seen in this forum. And some will only be able to imagine what a hard-won victory that is.

[Irreverend IX]

14. You're making no sense...

Why would a cop tilt their head upwards while shooting? The problem with a camera mounted on the gun is that in many cases, the gun will be fired immediately after it's drawn, and the footage will thus provide no context for the shooting. A camera on a cop's shoulder or helmet would show what was happening before the shots were fired, which would provide more information than a brief view of a suspect as they are shot.

[iverglas]

15. fuckin duh

Why would a cop tilt their head upwards while shooting?

Uh ... so the camera didn't capture what was happening? You wouldn't actually have to tilt your head too far to throw the camera angle off just far enough, you know.


The problem with a camera mounted on the gun is that in many cases, the gun will be fired immediately after it's drawn, and the footage will thus provide no context for the shooting. A camera on a cop's shoulder or helmet would show what was happening before the shots were fired, which would provide more information than a brief view of a suspect as they are shot.

Yeah ... and this had something to do with the ... words fail me ... moronic to the nth degree comment I was replying to:

I definately agree the camera on the cops not on the gun.
The cop is the one that is responsible not the gun.

... how?

I thought it was supposed to be the gun-grabbers who anthropomorphized the bleeding things ...



and again the keyboard betrays me ...

[maxidivine]

16. God that's dumb

You really think a police officer who had to draw and fire on someone would be looking up at the sky? Instead of being absolutely focused on the threat in front of them?

Because when situations get out of control, training almost always takes over until the danger has ceased. No law enforcement agency or any other group has ever trained their members to look away from the opponent they are in combat with.

Got any more retarded ideas?

[iverglas]

17. it sure is

You really think a police officer who had to draw and fire on someone would be looking up at the sky?

If whoever you're talking to thinks that, s/he would be a complete moron!

Congratulations on stating the obvious.


Got any more retarded ideas?

You know, this is how people talked when I was about 13, and that was a long time ago. Congratulations on your adoption of a discourse that decent people discarded almost as long ago.