Gun cameras

[toreskha]

Ok, so this might be a bit off-topic, but it's a concept that interests me. Miniscule digital cameras have gotten to the point where they're just obscenely small, and are now put in many devices almost as an afterthought - cell phones, the inside of laptops, even people's cars.

There's already accessory lasers and lights that are made to fit on guns. Why not cameras that can either be set to roll manually or automatically (maybe vibration-triggered) when the gun fires? This may help to corroborate the accounts of CWP holders who act in self-defense in unfriendly states.

Any ideas about this? I don't have an opinion on this either way, it was just something that came to mind.

[Zippo74]

I can see your logic here and Im not saying I disagree with it but I see a few holes in the idea.

First off. In most states it is illeagle to record a persons voice without their expressed permision or unless you have a court order.

Secondly we are talking about concealed carry. I have a few weapon lights / lasers and none of them are able to be concealed very easily. I mean it could be done but not without a special holster and a more bulky solution.

Then there is the activation of the camera. I would hope that your weapon is never drawn until you are ready to use it. The camera would not be able to record anything until you are drawn down on your target and then AFTER you fire the camera is activated.

In my opinion it is more often than not that the events leading up to the shooting is what is going to make or break you. So all importaint information is lost while your piece sits in its holster.

Then there are issues of
Lens staying clean during firing.
insain vibration and what it would do to the optics.
Memory and how to acess it... I dont want to have a USB port on my carry gun.

I see your thought process.. and I cant say that it would be a bad thing in certain sittuations...

I just cant imagine how it would be exicuted in an everyday CCW world.

Just my two cents.

[MufDady]

Your thoughs being good, I have to agree with Zippo............ maybe some day who knows....

[Glock Fan]

There is a product that was recently announced at thls poast "SHOT Show" in Las Vegas, NV. The camera was initially designed for police officers as a way to protect officers and help investigators determine if a lind of duty shooting was justified. The camera is a combination tactical light/camera, and attaches the same way as the tactical light.

From what I understood in the article I read (didn't go to the SHOT Show, read an article in a law enforcement publication), many departments are in favor of the technology.



gf

On a hunting show a while back I remember a segment from an advertiser about a rifle scope that recorded the shot. How it works (roughly) : It's constantly recording a small amount off time. When a shot vibrates the scope/camera, the device rewinds to the time of the shot and gives you a shot of your trophy. I'm unaware of storage capacity but it wouldn't take much memeory to hold a bunch of shots.:p:

[toreskha]

Originally Posted by Zippo74

First off. In most states it is illeagle to record a persons voice without their expressed permision or unless you have a court order.

I'm getting off the subject a little, but that's actually a misconception. It is illegal to record people in any way if they believe that the situation is private - such as a phone conversation, or being in their own homes, or a restroom. It is also illegal to record minors in many institutional settings without parental permission (at school, at church, at a youth program, etc).

In a public space, it is absolutely legal to freely record people doing whatever they're doing, and also to record their conversations - by their being in public, they are assumed to have consented to any observation or recording. This is why it's ok to carry a video camera around Disney World, or to put a surveillance camera on every corner. What constitutes a "public space" is often a subject of debate, but the concept is there.

Secondly we are talking about concealed carry. I have a few weapon lights / lasers and none of them are able to be concealed very easily. I mean it could be done but not without a special holster and a more bulky solution.

Then there is the activation of the camera. I would hope that your weapon is never drawn until you are ready to use it. The camera would not be able to record anything until you are drawn down on your target and then AFTER you fire the camera is activated.

In my opinion it is more often than not that the events leading up to the shooting is what is going to make or break you. So all importaint information is lost while your piece sits in its holster.

Yep - I think those two issues (bulk and pre-event time) along with shock/vibration would be the biggest problems here. Miniaturization could help fix the first problem, and video editing software could help get past the shock and vibe, but the problem of lead time is a big one. We don't want people drawing early just so that they can get plenty of good pictures of what happened.

This wouldn't be such a big deal, if it weren't for the people who successfully defend themselves against an attack (and kill/injure a perp) and then get stuck with having to defend themselves against the legal system that is supposed to protect them, because of the stupid laws pushed by the Brady Bunch. I'd like to stick it to the BB by making it easier for video evidence to be used that helps CWP holders.

Probably in this situation, surveillance cameras are a CWP holder's best friend, as much as I hate the things. Something like that can really make or break a self-defense case in court. Maybe if the cameras get a bit smaller, I can have one in my Oakleys? :-D

[Glock Fan]

Here's a link to the site: http://www.pistolcam.com/


gf

[Red Hat]

My personal opinion is I don't like the idea of having a camera capture my actions. What I think at the time may not be what a jury will think watching the tape. There's no sense giving a deceased BG a voice at a trial or hearing! I'll pass on the camera...

[toreskha]

Ok, well...that actually looks pretty effective. Apparently the shock did not affect the camera adversely. Now if it could only be smaller...

Originally Posted by Red Hat

My personal opinion is I don't like the idea of having a camera capture my actions. What I think at the time may not be what a jury will think watching the tape. There's no sense giving a deceased BG a voice at a trial or hearing! I'll pass on the camera...

Well, maybe...but, you could also call many expert witnesses (law enforcement, weapons instructors, etc) who could support a valid self-defense claim based on the video. If the tape shows a guy running at you with a lead pipe, or someone with another gun pointed at you, or an up-close video of some crackhead with a knife, that's probably not going to hurt your case.

[Glock Fan]

Originally Posted by toreskha

Well, maybe...but, you could also call many expert witnesses (law enforcement, weapons instructors, etc) who could support a valid self-defense claim based on the video. If the tape shows a guy running at you with a lead pipe, or someone with another gun pointed at you, or an up-close video of some crackhead with a knife, that's probably not going to hurt your case.

Remember, the government has a lot more resources than your average citizen. When the prosecutors try a case, they'll have a lot of taxpayer money to spend on their expert witnesses. For every one that the defense calls, expect the prosecution to call one as well. I don't know about you, but at $10,000 per appearance, I'm not sure how many expert witnesses I can afford.

I'm with "Red Hat" in a sense. Without a camera, it's your word against the BG. Maybe a couple of witnesses. Most likely, the witnesses would have been scared s***tless and not "absolutely" sure of what they saw. Most BG have a long criminal history. Hopefully the jury takes the long criminal history into consideration and believes your account over the BG.



gf