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..
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.
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.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
This might also prove/disprove alot of those police brutality/murder cases.
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..
Paperwork???
No.....sprinkle some crack on him....
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.
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.