IMPD signs $9.2M contract to equip officers with body cameras

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
    IMPD signs $9.2M contract to equip officers with body cameras


    ...The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department on Thursday said it has signed a $9.2 million contract with Decatur, Georgia-based Utility Inc., which will equip 1,100 officers with BodyWorn camera technology.

    IMPD said the 5-1/2-year contract covers the costs of leasing the technology, installation of the equipment, upgrades to the technology after three years, maintenance and local support to address any technology issues, and cloud-based video storage.

    The contract covers the 1,100 officers in the 1,700-officer force who respond to 911 emergency calls.

    Installation of the technology will begin in the coming weeks with officers in IMPD’s East District, the busiest district in the city, with a goal of equipping 10 officers per day, the department said.

    IMPD has assigned Lt. Scott Kulig to oversee the camera program and will hire civilians to manage, review, and redact footage. Those positions are expected to cost the city an additional $159,000.

    The funds were included in the 2020 City-County Budget along with an initial $1.2 million dedicated to the technology rollout...
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,792
    150
    Avon
    Prediction: they'll cut the force to pay for the equipment. Incredibly cynical? Yes. Seen it before? Yes.
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,021
    113
    Martinsville
    What a waste of money, why am I not surprised?

    I was under the impression that body cams do far FAR more to protect the officer against roving mobs with cellphone cameras, than they do to hurt the officer.

    They allow there to be a second side to the story, with all the context in place.

    I think they should be mandatory in the same way body armor should be mandatory.
     

    MCgrease08

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    37   0   0
    Mar 14, 2013
    14,373
    149
    Earth
    I was under the impression that body cams do far FAR more to protect the officer against roving mobs with cellphone cameras, than they do to hurt the officer.

    They allow there to be a second side to the story, with all the context in place.

    I think they should be mandatory in the same way body armor should be mandatory.

    I tend to agree with this too.

    Body cameras aren't perfect, but they generally seem to do more to protect and exonerate officers than they hurt. If nothing else they help the general public see how difficult policing can be.
     

    phylodog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    59   0   0
    Mar 7, 2008
    18,751
    113
    Arcadia
    I was under the impression that body cams do far FAR more to protect the officer against roving mobs with cellphone cameras, than they do to hurt the officer.

    They allow there to be a second side to the story, with all the context in place.

    I think they should be mandatory in the same way body armor should be mandatory.

    I will 100% agree with you as soon as the technology is developed where the camera records exactly what the officer sees and nothing else. They don't tell the story from the officer's perspective because they can't see what the officer sees.

    Example: Officer is chasing a suspect on foot, suspect turns with a gun in his hand and the officer shoots. What did the camera see? I nice long blur, current body cams are not stabilized and cannot focus while an officer is moving quickly.

    Example 2: Same scenario except this time the suspect turns a few quick corners and the officer doesn't know where the suspect is but keeps running. As the officer runs past the corner he sees the suspect with a gun draws and fires before he can stop running or even face toward the suspect. What did the camera see? Nada until after the shots were fired.

    Example 3: Dark places. How many body cameras have some sort of night vision capability? I think most do these days. Why is it fair to judge an officer's actions based on information he did not have at the time? If the camera sees what's in someone's hands better than the officer you can bet the jury will hold the officer accountable as if he could see it.

    These cameras don't even track with the officer's head. How many people do you see walking around every day with their head locked in the forward position? Multiply that further by the eyes having the ability to move. Not only do they not track where the officer's head was facing but they don't track where the officer's eyes were at the time. I've had things happen right in front of me that I never saw coming because my head was turned or I was looking another direction, or both.

    They typically do protect the officers, that's why a lot of the people who originally screamed about officers having them very quickly started screaming they were racist or some such nonsense and wanted them pulled? The cameras were showing how people actually acted and they didn't like it. That said, in today's BS PC BLM environment I sure as hell wouldn't want to stand trial and I damned sure wouldn't want video taken by a camera which did not see what I saw, or saw what I couldn't being brought in as evidence and used to get a BS conviction.
     
    Top Bottom