Pistol camera captures gunslinging action, seeks role in next Faces of Death

Barrel-mounted cameras aren't exactly revolutionary, but it's not everyday that you see the boys in blue sporting one on their sidearm. Nevertheless, Orange County's sheriff's emergency service team and the Newburgh Police Department will reportedly "be the first groups to test the pistol cam," which would record audio and video whenever the weapon was removed from its holster. According to Chief Eric Paolilli, it'll be implemented if trials prove that there are no safety / functionality issues associated with it. As it stands, the state has set aside $35,000 in order for the device to be adequately tested, and if everything goes smoothly, Newburgh officers could soon be rocking the camera (and creating footage for COPS) as part of their standard equipment.

[Via The Raw Feed]

[Taylor Curry @ Oct 30th 2007 6:40PM]

This might also prove/disprove alot of those police brutality/murder cases.

[tom @ Oct 30th 2007 7:48PM]

uhh i might just be going out on a limb here but i cant see this selling well in the African-American community, i could have sworn the aim was NOT to leave any evidence..

[dave c, @ Oct 30th 2007 8:53PM]

Paperwork???

No.....sprinkle some crack on him....

[DickHardknocks @ Oct 30th 2007 11:01PM]

ROLL TAPE !


If police shootings are so bad they have to mount cameras to guns then America really needs to do something about its gun violence.

First of all, the reason why we arm police with guns is SUPPOSSED TO BE so they have the ability to kill in order to save lives. Police are SUPPOSSED TO BE FAIR and their judgement when using their weapons is SUPPOSSED TO BE INSCRUTABLE.

Unfortunately, the police departments of america have had a long history of institutionalized RACISM, CLASSISM and ELITISM along with infrequent ties to organized crime.

The last thing any cop wants is to have his judgement to use his weapon end up in a courtroom being reviewed by a jury. That is what this camera represents.


I always believed however that if cops have the power to KILL citizens then the government should have the right to review their decision thoroughly - the camera helps see what the cop was shooting at, but not why he was shooting or what he was thinking when he did so.

The one thing that is true however, is that most criminals won't have cameras mounted under their guns when shooting at cops.

[James @ Nov 1st 2007 10:17AM]

The thing to remember is, *every single time* an officer discharges his weapon, there's going to be some level of review of the incident. I think having the whole thing on tape is a great addition to that -- in the event of a "bad shoot", you have better evidence than the word of the victim (if they're even still alive), and in the event of a "good shoot", you have extra weight given to the word of the cop.

I'd like to elaborate on that last one. I'm not on the front lines, so I don't base this on solid facts, but I get the impression that the weight given to the word of a cop has gone down quite a bit -- there's a lot of anti-police sentiment out there, and/or a lot of sympathy for criminals. I think of cases like Compean/Ramos (the two border patrol agents who got sent to prison for shooting a fleeing drug smuggler in the ass) might have gone a bit differently if they had gun-cam footage where they could pull up a frame, point to the guy's hand, and say, "Here's where we thought he had a gun." Then the jury could look at it from their perspective and decide for themselves whether it looked threatening or whether it was just something they made up after the fact to cover their own asses. I personally believe the former -- well, actually I personally don't care because I don't think law enforcement needs an excuse to shoot a fleeing drug smuggler -- but it would be beneficial to have evidence to help us all decide.

[Kris S. @ Oct 30th 2007 6:53PM]

I hope it doesn't slow down drawing of the weapon.

[boing @ Oct 31st 2007 5:56AM]

Don't worry they'll be fine, that's why they wear those long robes.

[CyberKender @ Oct 31st 2007 11:14AM]

The one of the companies that makes popular police tasers already has a model with a camera built in. Seems like a logical next step to put them on the guns.

[paul34 @ Oct 30th 2007 7:00PM]

My question is - how does it provide smooth/stable enough video and audio to be useful?

Especially if the officer is running and suddenly has to fire his weapon - it gets very chaotic, as anyone could imagine.

But I think as far as just at least an audio stream of incidents away from the squad car could be very useful.

However, something tells me Mackey isn't going to be picking one of these up =p

[Xee @ Oct 30th 2007 7:08PM]

I'm not a cop but I can't imagine an instance when they'd be running and shooting at the same time (unless you were in an action movie). You'd have no accuracy whatsoever.

I believe the only thing you're likely to see is a lot of panning.

[Xee @ Oct 30th 2007 7:02PM]

Their website says it weighs 1.5 ounces. I wonder if it would affect an officer's aim due to the extra weight on the end of the gun. Also, it just looks cumbersome; if you had to draw your weapon quickly it looks like it could snag easily.

[mrberkut @ Oct 30th 2007 7:36PM]

That's exactly my concern as well... Extra added weight will dis balance that weapon. Also, since it's so bulky it might snag on something during a critical moment costing that officer his life. It's a nice idea to have camera on a weapon, but they could have done a lot better job in making it more compact.

[Josh @ Oct 30th 2007 9:26PM]

Special forces use lasers about this size, and likely have holsters designed to fit add-ons not unlike this. It may require some getting used to, but considering the fact that this will provide a lot of evidence for police brutality cases and hopefully prevent needless deaths.

[David @ Oct 30th 2007 10:35PM]

On the Glock, can't you remove the cap for the slide guide?

Or maybe they should just make a camera that can replace the slide guide.

For people who don't know what a slide guide is, it's the thing that keeps the slide in place after the shot is fired (right under the barrel.)

[Davandron @ Oct 30th 2007 7:06PM]

Nearly 70 years after it was first suggested! (At least according to the Feb, 1938 issue of "Modern Mechanix")

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/16/camera-on-policemans-revolver-snaps-evidence/

[guy #4 @ Oct 30th 2007 7:10PM]

What ever happened to Faces of Death? I haven't seen [a real] one of those videos in a couple years, just the crap on Limewire.

[pikkoz @ Oct 30th 2007 7:15PM]

"Kneel down, put your hands up and say "cheese", you b***ard!"

[HineyWipe @ Oct 30th 2007 7:29PM]

Gene Simmons says, "meh".
(obscure movie reference)

[John Allison @ Oct 30th 2007 7:59PM]

Nope, not obsucure.... Runaway :)

[Jacob Kennedy @ Oct 31st 2007 12:20PM]

$35,000 doesn't sound like a lot for the testing. If the cameras were $35,000 a piece, yeah, that'd be a rip-off. Considering the man-power and documentation that will have to be done during the testing, $35K sounds like a deal.

[eX @ Oct 30th 2007 11:00PM]

Exactly the thought I had when I saw this thing. Also, the $35000 is such horse shit. I mean how much more can the companies overcharge the government and we have to pay for all this with our taxes. No wonder all these CEO's make hundreds of millions of dollars. Nonetheless, the idea of such device is very good and would definitely help reduce cop's abuse of their power. On the other hand however, there could be situations where a suspect might look like they're going to pull a gun and cop might shoot (even if not kill). Which technically can end up in possibility of people trying to take advantage of this for a possible monetary gain (risking their life or a limb of course). The fact that people like this do exist makes something like this very possible.

[eX @ Oct 30th 2007 11:03PM]

Whoops, my bad about the 35K comment guess I didn't read the post well. Though, it wouldn't surprise me too much if the company actually would charge the government something like that. Just like same airplane tickets for government are 3x the normal price.

[gadjitfreek @ Oct 30th 2007 8:22PM]

Hey! That's MY town! My tax dollars at work!

[Ryan Adams @ Oct 30th 2007 8:27PM]

Just to clear up some:

Someone mentioned the potential that this would unbalance the weapon/slow drawing of the gun. That is true to some degree. The device does add weight, but it looks like it would be comparable to any other mounted flashlight. Additionally, guns are often drawn well before it becomes necessary to fire them, and even more often a gun is drawn without ever firing. I'm sure you've seen it on COPS (sorry for using that show as a reference, but I figure everyone here has seen it), an officer stops a car and receives a threat. He then approaches the car with his gun drawn and pointed, he doesn't wait till the last second to draw it. Therefore, draw speed isn't really an issue.

As for being jittery, this is also unlikely. Take the previous example, the gun is pointed and remains pointed at one point (that is the whole idea behind aiming). Now sure, if the officer then sprints you are going to record all kinds of jitter and ground shots, but when the officer does fire his weapon (and this is obviously the crucial point of the video) the gun will again be steady and pointed at the situation.

Just my thoughts, but it sounds like a great idea. If it works as it is designed I think the pros would far outweigh the cons.

[catfish @ Oct 30th 2007 8:49PM]

The technology might not be quite there (cost/size wise) but this is most certainly a very, very good idea that will serve to both protect cops and the general public, and generate useful evidence against criminals.

[David @ Oct 30th 2007 9:13PM]

BANG!!!

(Policeman reviewing the tape) "Ahh!!! My ears!!!!!"

[paul34 @ Oct 30th 2007 9:27PM]

"I apologize, your honor... the situation was chaotic and I accidentally covered the lens with my hand."

Hmm...

[Jacqueline @ Oct 30th 2007 9:40PM]

Technical issues aside, this thing was made for reality TV.

[Jacqueline @ Oct 30th 2007 9:40PM]

Technical issues aside, this thing was made for reality TV.

[Karim @ Oct 31st 2007 12:05AM]

Eventually there will be a whole freaking cable channel just for these videos. They'll have shows like, "Stop, Or I'll Shoot Video!" and "America's Funniest Homicides," maybe even a show dedicated to non-lethal weapons, presumably called "Don't Tase Me, Bro."

Does the Sony version of this camera incorporate their image-stablization technology?

[strider_mt2k @ Oct 30th 2007 10:06PM]

Okay Okay,
Here's where he totally gets killed.

Sweet.

Hopefully this won't lead to scrapbooks of death.

[Fruition @ Oct 30th 2007 11:18PM]

Back... and to the left.
Back... and to the left.
Back... and to the left...

[DickHardknocks @ Oct 30th 2007 11:03PM]

Now when someone committs SUICIDE BY COP they'll get 15 minutes of fame.

[Mike @ Oct 30th 2007 11:14PM]

Now we just need these on tasers.

[Brian @ Oct 30th 2007 11:20PM]

No way. That thing would snag so easily...

Why not just put the camera on the officer's uniform?

Or why not on special eyewear / headwear / neckwear?

THAT could be done

[Chuoc Vo @ Oct 31st 2007 1:30AM]

Umm... I dunno bout you, but i don't want my family seeing me staring into the barrel of the gun before I die... Well, then again I never run from the police... nor do I do anything illegal.

[TIMMAH! @ Oct 31st 2007 2:16AM]

...also known as "JohnWoovision"

[Rad Hatter @ Oct 31st 2007 2:27AM]

If Chuck Norris was a real cop, they'd attach those cams to his fists.

[Fruition @ Oct 31st 2007 6:49AM]

I thought Chuck specialized in roundhouse kicks? Attaching them to his feet might yield better results.

[Mikey @ Oct 31st 2007 6:46AM]

Holy crap. You'd be watching a real-life FPS. BOOM Headshot!

[USA homes @ Nov 2nd 2007 6:25AM]

Actually it looks a bit toyish.

---------
Best homes

[fd @ Oct 31st 2007 9:58AM]

That a certain state has set aside 35K to test the device doesn't mean every camera is 35K each! It is 35K budgeted to order / lease a batch of these cameras, have a technician install them, probably have a company representative available during testing and if purchased (rather than leased) maybe to cover any extra equipment needed like chargers, gear to download the videos without tampering, ... Not all test / demo equipment is provided free of charge through the manufacturer. I recall certain vehicles for fleet review required my employer to take on extra insurance, even though the vehicle was insured.

The balance / unbalance. I don't think it would be that bad. Different weapons have different balance. Training would be the key.

While others are right in that guns drawn situations occur a lot more than true critical emergencies - at least in the US. Drawing your firearm is for instance far less common in the EU, for a variety of reasons, most importantly that few citizens have access to firearms over there and it would seem that emergency drawing of the weapon occurs far more often due to different practices and perceptions. Anyhow my main concern would be drawing the firearm in an emergency situation, and along the same line, the safety of the holster against criminals trying to grab your pistol during a struggle.

The video quality seemed very usable, from what they had on ABC news / GMA this morning. They used tracers. Didn't hear sound during the clip though. Maybe the station muted it. For real world situations it might have some audio dampening system for the shots (used in hi-tech hearing protection) as recording voices and maybe that of the suspect requires a sensitive microphone or two (one back, one front).

[fd @ Oct 31st 2007 11:23AM]

Have a look at one of the original linked stories: http://www.wrex.com/News/index.php?ID=22973

" about the size of a lipstick "

ROFLOL. I don't know what size lipstick the person who typed that story uses.