quote:

Originally posted by jsbcody:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gearhounds:
If Darren Wilson had had a camera on his weapon, Ferguson might have turned out very differently./QUOTE]

No it wouldn't have. Police Shooting investigations have drastically changed since then. The protocol then was to do an investigation, not release any information UNTIL the investigation was done. As soon as "hands up, don't shoot" went viral, nothing including releasing any body cam could have stopped that. The BLM crowd started with the Zimmerman shooting and they were looking for the just right perfect storm to get their agenda across. As recent incidents show, they will deny the body cam shows the entire incident or it has been edited.

The protocol now is as soon as the shot suspect is identified, the computer nerds do social media searches (face book etc), make copies of what they posted and get search warrants to the relative companies to maintain evidence. Now there are briefings to TRY and stay ahead of the false narratives put out. A recent Officer Involved Shooting, they put out the suspect was shot three times from the front yet the next day, protestors were still telling the media that the "victim" was shot six times int he back and the last shoot was to his head as he laid on the ground. Some of the media did not question their statement, did not even include the official statement that suspect was shot three times in front in their "news" story.

Like Biden said, facts don't matter as long as they have the "truth" on their side.

My point is that Brown was pummeling Wilson through the open window of his cruiser; a gun mounted cam would have shown at least part of the assault before the trigger was pulled. It would also unequivocally proven that. Brown was not executed on his knees by an enraged racist cop. It would have been a LOT harder to push a narrative like “hands up, don’t shoot” when video clearly shows that wasn’t what was happening. No matter what lies they tried to peddle, camera footage does not lie.

I’d expect the light can be set to come on manually or with the draw. Admittedly I didn’t watch the video.

My agency’s SOP is once WMLs are turned on, they are left on. Idea being frequent manipulation under stress might be bad. I prefer a separate light anyway, and only use the WML when I’m doing entries.

Lotta money, big, complicated training problem. I' m good with the light, but it should be user operated. Not sure what this adds to a body cam.

I think ALL politicians should be required to wear body cameras that run 24/7. They are the ones that can't be trusted.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

My point is that Brown was pummeling Wilson through the open window of his cruiser; a gun mounted cam would have shown at least part of the assault before the trigger was pulled. It would also unequivocally proven that. Brown was not executed on his knees by an enraged racist cop. It would have been a LOT harder to push a narrative like “hands up, don’t shoot” when video clearly shows that wasn’t what was happening. No matter what lies they tried to peddle, camera footage does not lie.

Frankly, I don't necessarily think this is true and for a lot of reasons. First of all, the narrative is whatever "they" say it is. Facts need not get in the way of outage. Second, most worn cameras are lower resolution, not motion stabilized, have fixed focal distances, and don't handle anything but perfect light conditions well. So maybe all you see is a blur or a smudge and hear some yelling. I've reviewed a lot of body and dash camera footage, much of which was from things in which I was personally present for and involved in. It never looks like it felt or seemed. Everything is bigger, faster, scarier. So camera footage "does not lie", but it seldom, if ever, contains the whole story.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
That sounds like a horrible idea, and would rule out a good WML. Why not a pressure switch attached/built into the holster that would activate a chest cam when the holster is empty?

I saw this very thing demo'ed by Motorola a few years ago.
Drawing the weapon from its holster automatically activated the body cam and sent a status alert to Dispatch. IIRC, it was a bluetooth-type connection from the holster to the remote speaker mic of the hand held radio.

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
Not only the light coming on but should not the camera be pointed in a safe direction until the last possible moment? So, you are going to have cops pointing this lighted camera all over the place?

I'm sure many of you will blast me, but I don't think a light should be on a gun let alone a camera.

I tried to write a reply on this one earlier, but hit the back button on my phone and nuked it.

I'll also take the risk of a flaming at this, but the cardinal firearms safety rules frankly do not take into account the realistic defensive use of a firearm. Some of the language changes between one version or another and I think some of it we accept in a very simplistic way without considering the realities of the defensive application of the gun. For example, the rule that you "never point a gun at something you are not willing to destroy" is often stated as "never point a gun at something you do not intend to destroy." This is almost a "thou shalt not kill" versus "thou shalt not murder" type of distinction. It is vital to understand the purpose behind the rules and the way they might be applied in the chaotic, non-sterile, context of self-defense.

If you've ever cleared a structure in which you legitimately believed a person was hiding and you did it without slaving the muzzle to your eyes for the most part, I question whether you really believed that there was somebody inside. In the law enforcement context, the same is often true of high risk traffic stops or high risk arrests (such as of potentially armed people). Guns get pointed at or very much in the direction of those people and vehicles whether illumination is important or not. This is particularly true with a mounted light on a shoulder-fired weapon. The realities of things like looking under beds and in closets and behind furnaces is that you point the gun where you're looking. I read a lot of internet tough guy talk about using a weapon light on a pistol that seems to apply another set of rules than a long gun, too. Nobody seems to question that a mounted light on a long gun is going to be used as the illumination source, but put it on a pistol and suddenly a camp of people open up that advocate, sometimes strongly, that that simply should not be the case and that it is somehow better to hold the gun with one hand. I understand the circumstances where that may occur and I understand the times where you might be searching or navigating with a handheld light and then need to draw and address something. Those are different. If you're searching something with your pistol in your hand, you should be using the weapon mounted light as a source of illumination. You are going to have better, more positive control of the gun and the light with both hands on it.

And when I talk about using the weapon light as an illumination tool, we need to accept that full, direct light is not necessarily always required. There are many indirect lighting techniques that are very effective and sometimes even more so than direct lighting in an era of thousand lumen lights.

On to the cameras, though... First of all, are the cops going to use these things to try to "get video?" No. They're not. The same hackneyed thought has been used as an argument against pistol mounted lights for years. Has some idiot done that somewhere before? Probably. Maybe even a few. Consider scale...I can confidently say that there are hundreds of thousands of pistol mounted lights out there. If there were even a hundred idiots out there, the scale is so small as to be insignificant. There is a far greater good served by making them available. Many agencies (likely including the one in question...it is relatively local to me) have body worn cameras and this kind of camera is only a supplementary thing. I actually really doubt there are many agencies willing to invest money in this niche "gun cam" unless they already have body worn cameras. It just doesn't make a ton of sense.

On that topic, Axon/Taser is NOT making Taser cameras anymore. This is the company that essentially pioneered the first truly successful weapon mounted camera (with their Taser camera) and they recognize the limited use of such a device in a body camera world. Video from the Taser cameras was often a very rapid draw and fire sequence that provided no context. Think about it...if Axon put the money and time into this technology, why abandon it? Because it's not worth the extra expense.

I would bet that the PD in this article got a sweetheart deal on these things. I am aware of another area PD that was demoing them for a while.

Just my thoughts.

Excellent, informative post, DaBigBR.

The points you make won’t and sometimes can’t be understood by some people because of the inability of many of us to think of and imagine anything outside our limited life experiences and consequent mindsets. This statement in particular sums up the vast gulf between the theory exemplified by applying simplistic range rules to a life or death situation and stark reality:

“If you've ever cleared a structure in which you legitimately believed a person was hiding and you did it without slaving the muzzle to your eyes for the most part, I question whether you really believed that there was somebody inside.”

As I’ve expressed it myself before I mostly got tired of engaging in such discussions, if someone is in my home uninvited, having a gun pointed at him will be the least of his concerns. Some of us have to contend with the possibility of an irresponsible relative or other roommate prowling around without announcing themselves properly, and that entails different risks that must be dealt with appropriately, but not all of us do. Furthermore, even if there are other authorized people in the house, there are ways of minimizing the dangers of using proper search and clearing techniques, as you also mentioned.

All this technology does is erode the credibility of the Police. If the incident was not completely visually/audio recorded then the Police must be lying. In NJ you have a car mounted audio/video camera, body worn camera and then your Taser has an automatic camera upon deployment. It's a shame things have come to this, If they spent a fraction of the thousands of dollars they spend on all this surveillance equipment and invest in good training you would have a good investment.

quote:

All this technology does is erode the credibility of the Police.

I don't understand this statment.

As a representative of Viridian Weapon Technologies, the company who manufactures the FACT Duty Weapon-Mounted Camera referenced in this media story, I wanted to take some time to address the statements throughout this discussion. There are certainly a lot of posts that are seemingly based solely on what was shared in the media story, without any actual research into our product’s design, function or purpose. With respect to your varying opinions and Viridian’s ongoing commitment to honoring differing viewpoints, I’d like to shed some light on this topic to the best of my ability.

Before I touch on the individual comments themselves, I want to point out the state of policing in our country as it exists today. Over the past 4+ decades, video evidence (dash cameras and body cameras) have sought to bring about accurate support of officer’s testimonies and simultaneously enhance transparency amidst routine or extreme encounters with the public. While the overwhelmingly vast majority of video evidence exonerates officers, protects their families, and helps avoid devastating lawsuits against municipalities, it has become so relied upon that if there happens to be an absence of video evidence during a major event, it can be seen as negligence or even diminish the public’s opinion of the recorded statements from law enforcement involved. We could debate the long list of complicated topics impacting this reality such as culture diversity, economic disparity, social oppression, and the overall degradation of respect for authority in our country, but it wouldn’t change the fact that video evidence is going to be necessary both now and in the future for effective, modern policing in the United States. If you disagree, I would refer you to the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on this technology by law enforcement agencies attempting to create better communities by utilizing new video evidence technology, or to the states that have mandated that all officers wear body cameras because of the importance of the evidence it provides. Having personally met with hundreds of Police Chiefs and Sheriffs over the past 2 years, I can thoroughly empathize with their struggle to continually embrace new technology while also managing the myriad of extensive budget demands they face each year. I’ve also seen the benefits firsthand of how Weapon-Mounted Cameras have accurately captured an officer-involved shooting that was not effectively captured by the officer’s body worn camera or dash camera. Hence the reason we developed the product to begin with.

I paraphrased many of your comments, so please do not take offense if I misinterpreted your overall message….

“The light comes on automatically upon the gun being drawn or whether or not lights should be used on guns….” (Johnny 3eagles, sigfreund, gearhounds, chongosuerte, Blume9mm))
- Viridian has been making lasers and lights since 2006 and would never force a law enforcement officer’s weapon light to be activated upon drawing their gun. If an officer desires for the light to activate upon drawing the firearm from their Safariland duty holster, the capability does exist with our INSTANT-ON® technology; however, we would never remove an officer’s ability to independently activate their weapon light. The light is a 500 lumen LED light with strobe or constant capability. From the over 500 agencies that have done trials of the product, the light generally exceeds expectations and adequately illuminates the field of view that the camera records (112 degrees). I won’t dive into the logic of if weapon lights are a benefit, but I can tell you that roughly half of all law enforcement use one and we didn’t want to make them choose between a Weapon-Mounted Camera and their tactical light. That’s why it has both. For agencies that do not allow them, we can remove the light and offer a camera only, but law enforcement has been progressively moving towards lights on the firearm in addition to a handheld light.

“Shouldn’t replace body cams…” (HayesGreener)
- Viridian has never suggested that this was our goal. It is ideally used as a supplement to body worn cameras. In roughly 75% of the implementations, Weapon-Mounted Cameras are accompanying body worn cameras and we support that. For the many thousands of departments that do not use body worn cameras, some have opted to implement Weapon-Mounted Cameras due to the cost and complexities currently preventing them from being able to have body cameras. Since Weapon-Mounted Cameras cost just 5-10% of the cost the average body worn camera program, it’s an extremely logical supplement, due to the fact that only 37% of fatal officer involved shootings are accurately captured by body worn cameras. This is often due to the body worn camera being blocked by an officer’s hands or a multitude of other obstacles.

"Missed details by weapon-mounted cameras, or creating technology to measure “human intent?” (darthfuster, ZSMICHAEL)
- There is no perfect video evidence solution. Our product is no better at capturing a high-speed chase than body worn cameras are at capturing an officer involved shooting. I can’t begin to comprehend the complicated emotions and decision making process facing officers who are forced to shoot another human being, but we hope that our technology will bring much needed clarity to the best of its ability. As far as new technology for “measuring human intent,” we’ll probably just stick to making industry leading weapon accessories for now.

“Why not a switch that would activate the body camera when the gun is drawn?” (Voshterkoff)
- Body camera companies already do this. They can also activate body cams when squad lights are turned on, driver door is opened, and automatically activate other officer’s cameras within a radius of one that is turned on. Great innovations, but they still don’t address that the body cameras are not effective at capturing shootings. They’re great for general person to person interactions, but leave much to be desired when a critical incident unfolds.

“Not a single media narrative has ever been changed by video, Ferguson would not have been different” (jsbcody, jljones)
- I tend to think Darren Wilson would disagree if he had 1080 HD footage of the moment when he shot Michael Brown. I had heard his family had to be relocated and he struggled to get employed in law enforcement, his primary career. Not to mention facing overwhelming hate and opposition in his own community. Were there not dozens of completely conflicting witness testimonies? I tend to think it makes a difference in depicting the facts in all gun drawn incidents.

“Complicated training problems” (LtJL)
- Actually, it’s entirely the opposite. Officers need only qualify with a new source of weapon light, and continue to do their job the way they always did. If an incident occurs, the back end offloading of video is handled at the administrative level and is protected by secure passwords and programs. Unlike body worn camera implementations by departments, officers do not need to be thinking about when to manually activate their camera, because the camera records automatically when the gun is drawn. We are repeatedly told how logistically simple it is to implement our device.

“Politicians should wear body cameras” (WCCPHD)
- Sounds interesting, we could probably use more facts in politics. I’m in favor!

“Poor video quality, doesn’t contain the whole story” (DaBigBR)
- Unlike other mobile recording devices, Weapon-Mounted Cameras utilize 1080HD video that has been systematically designed to mimic an officer’s vision and reflects the best possible perspective during a shooting event. We will probably never have the full story, but the more information the better in protecting officers and communities.

“Taser cams no longer being made” (DaBigBR)
- I can’t speak to this other than departments have told us that Taser cams had notoriously poor quality video resolution. Many departments liked them, but wished they had better recording specs.

“All this technology does is erode the credibility of police, invest in good training instead” (njauto)
- I couldn’t possibly disagree more. Our proof is in the cases where it has already supported officers and silenced many false claims in officer-involved shootings. Weapon-Mounted Cameras will be a tool that continues to show what really happened during critical events and increase integrity amongst the communities utilizing them. This isn’t to say that law enforcement isn’t already credible, but like I mentioned in my evaluation of current policing, our culture has adopted a growing lack of respect for authority. Whether that’s justified or not is widely debated among hundreds of people groups in this country. In an attempt to be a part of a healthy solution to that problem, Viridian Weapon-Mounted Cameras are positively impacting the industry at a level we haven’t seen in years.

Thank you, sir. I appreciate your clarifications and information.

viridianmanager, thanks for stepping in.
I have a question in regard to video uploading and battery life. How is data uploaded and how frequently do batteries need to be changed or charged?

Our current cameras must be docked at end of shift by policy. I for one am of the mindset the less one needs to unholster their weapon the better.
While yes finger off the trigger and safe weapons handling is paramount you add daily unholsterings and manipulations of the weapon you are going to see an increase in ADs and NDs.
So I am curious is uploading and charging possible without unholstering?

Black92LX, great questions.

To expand upon the data and battery capabilities, The device goes into a sleep state when it's holstered and can hold a charge while in the holster for approximately 14 MONTHS. The FACT Duty also has a 32gb internal, non-removable storage, that will hold up to 6.5 hours of video data at 1080HD resolution.

Based on that, departments generally write it into policy that they are only required to download their camera once every 2-4 weeks or immediately following a critical incident. The data is transferred via a universal cable and connected to a USB on a PC. It links to our free password access software. Once they enter their password for the camera, they can transfer the files to any existing evidence management system that they are currently using, since the files are a basic .MOV formatted video. This would all be done at the admin level and therefore tracked through chain of custody in almost all cases.

We agree that less handling of the firearm is ideal. Having said that, the WMC does need to be plugged in to charge it. Given the current limitations of technology such as inductive charging that you see on mobile phones now, we aren't able to charge it through a duty holster or manipulate the holster in such a way that would accommodate charging. To address this, we put indicator lights on the bottom of the device that are subtle, yet visible, showing you the battery percentage and memory status. They will go green, yellow, red at different intervals. At a quick glance, an officer can know if their camera has ample power available. That's something SWAT teams, drug task force, and others have really appreciated compared to using disposable batteries that could die any second without warning or having to constantly replace expensive CR123s to ensure you don't lose power. For that reason, charging is not required daily, weekly or even monthly depending on overall usage. Larger agencies have widely adopted the Safariland Quick Locking System (QLS) which lets them remove their holster from their belt in seconds. For storage in lockers or in jails for example, the QLS allows the gun and camera to be safely contained and alleviates recorded files that are basic in and out of the holster tasks. The device comes with an external charger and most officers keep an extra charged battery either in their squad or on a bank of chargers at the PD. I had an officer at a larger agency tell me that he only had to charge the device 3 times in the 8 months they were conducting their trial. This will be variable, but he felt like he used it "a lot."

As a side note, I think you'll see the majority of weapon lights transition to rechargeable batteries in the future due to the added power, life span, and overall cost savings that they provide. The same reason cell phones don't run on disposables! Thankful for that.

Any additional questions are welcomed.

quote:

Missed details by weapon-mounted cameras, or creating technology to measure “human intent?” (darthfuster, ZSMICHAEL)
- There is no perfect video evidence solution. Our product is no better at capturing a high-speed chase than body worn cameras are at capturing an officer involved shooting. I can’t begin to comprehend the complicated emotions and decision making process facing officers who are forced to shoot another human being, but we hope that our technology will bring much needed clarity to the best of its ability. As far as new technology for “measuring human intent,” we’ll probably just stick to making industry leading weapon accessories for now.

Perhaps I was not clear in my post. I meant to say there are details in the circumstance that the human eye and attention miss that the camera records. When questions arise later and focus on a detail is critical, the recording is there for reference. I think that is valuable for discovery of truth. Again, in my business, use of a camera/recording has saved my bacon many times when questions arose later.

Glad to hear the “automatic light on” has a workaround. An instant on at officer discretion is a mandatory function. And again, Darren Wilson’s post shooting situation would have been vastly improved by camera footage that supported the truth.

Darthfuster- Thanks for clarifying! The nature of having video evidence is that it can be slowed down to relive a situation. The fear that it could be used against an officer certainly exists, but law enforcement's use of force standards will predominantly overcome any speculation about if the shootings was justified based on the video evidence available. In summary, it will help tremendously to have more evidence and rarely is it "incriminating." Not having evidence is almost always a negative for authorities.

gearhounds- Agreed. While we can only speculate with perfect hind sight ideology regarding Ferguson, it's hard to imagine the events unfolding in the same tragic fashion if there would have been video of the event.

quote:

“All this technology does is erode the credibility of police, invest in good training instead” (njauto)

It is true that in most cases the availability of situation video will probably improve the credibility of the reports, in those situations where such video is not available it will most probably diminish the credibility, even when such is not otherwise justified. Once technology has become routinely accepted by the general public, its absence then becomes a negative influence, even subconsciously. (Consider the impact of TV shows like CSI and NCIS on how juries consider evidence these days.)

It is entirely possible that policing will become so impacted by technology that the "good" will suffer because the "perfect" is missing.

flashguy

quote:

gearhounds- Agreed. While we can only speculate with perfect hind sight ideology regarding Ferguson, it's hard to imagine the events unfolding in the same tragic fashion if there would have been video of the event.

All speculation of course but I do not think it would have made a lick of difference to the mob mentality that went on. Departments were still of the mindset of not releasing video until after the investigation. Plus none of what happened in Ferguson was about “justice” and to add that the very clear video of the fella violently attacking the store clerk just prior to his encounter with Wilson was available quickly but the mob’s “gentle giant” narrative still flowed on all the news coverage.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

quote:

gearhounds- Agreed. While we can only speculate with perfect hind sight ideology regarding Ferguson, it's hard to imagine the events unfolding in the same tragic fashion if there would have been video of the event.

All speculation of course but I do not think it would have made a lick of difference to the mob mentality that went on. Departments were still of the mindset of not releasing video until after the investigation. Plus none of what happened in Ferguson was about “justice” and to add that the very clear video of the fella violently attacking the store clerk just prior to his encounter with Wilson was available quickly but the mob’s “gentle giant” narrative still flowed on all the news coverage.

Perhaps no difference in the ensuing riotous behavior, but Darren Wilson’s life would have most certainly been different. And let’s not forget the Crimson Kenyon fanning the fire of racial divide by enabling the “hands up, don’t shoot” movement. With clear video proof, he wouldn’t have dared given the public support he gave.