Minnesota Police Agency Adopts Gun-mounted Cameras

[phylodog]

I don't always assume that. But when an officer here in IN gets caught on tape saying "Is that recording, I know how to delete it, do you want me to delete it for you" when referring to another officer's body cam. It does make you wonder a bit.



I'll have to disagree. It can tell an accurate story, what the officer did or didn't see is a different story.

They rarely, very rarely tell the whole story or anywhere near it. If an officer wearing a body cam is facing north the camera is recording what is north of the officer. If the officer turns his head to the east the officer sees what is east of him and the camera is still recording what is north.

Cameras have infinite focus, human eyes don't.
Cameras see much better in low light than human eyes do.
Humans can compensate and maintain focus on an object while in motion, cameras don't.

All of these create significant issues when you consider that people will put 100% more faith in what they can see for themselves than what an officer says they saw. We also now have groups which three years ago were screaming for every officer in the country to wear a body camera, now don't want officers wearing them. They also don't want officers to be able to watch the video themselves before writing a report yet they want to be able to use the video to judge the officer's actions.

I wish the technology existed which could show exactly what the officer sees, when it happens I believe every officer in the country should wear one but until then I'm 100% against them.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

They rarely, very rarely tell the whole story or anywhere near it. If an officer wearing a body cam is facing north the camera is recording what is north of the officer. If the officer turns his head to the east the officer sees what is east of him and the camera is still recording what is north.

Cameras have infinite focus, human eyes don't.
Cameras see much better in low light than human eyes do.
Humans can compensate and maintain focus on an object while in motion, cameras don't.

All of these create significant issues when you consider that people will put 100% more faith in what they can see for themselves than what an officer says they saw. We also now have groups which three years ago were screaming for every officer in the country to wear a body camera, now don't want officers wearing them. They also don't want officers to be able to watch the video themselves before writing a report yet they want to be able to use the video to judge the officer's actions.

I wish the technology existed which could show exactly what the officer sees, when it happens I believe every officer in the country should wear one but until then I'm 100% against them.

 

[Squatz24]

I like my body camera. I don't think the gun camera is necessary with a well place body camera. Tech is changing with body cameras to make the cam start recording if Officer is dispatched a call, or draws their firearm or taser. I'll take my TLR-1 HL and body cam over the ****ty light that is going to come with that gun camera.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

They rarely, very rarely tell the whole story or anywhere near it. If an officer wearing a body cam is facing north the camera is recording what is north of the officer. If the officer turns his head to the east the officer sees what is east of him and the camera is still recording what is north.

Cameras have infinite focus, human eyes don't.
Cameras see much better in low light than human eyes do.
Humans can compensate and maintain focus on an object while in motion, cameras don't.

All of these create significant issues when you consider that people will put 100% more faith in what they can see for themselves than what an officer says they saw. We also now have groups which three years ago were screaming for every officer in the country to wear a body camera, now don't want officers wearing them. They also don't want officers to be able to watch the video themselves before writing a report yet they want to be able to use the video to judge the officer's actions.

I wish the technology existed which could show exactly what the officer sees, when it happens I believe every officer in the country should wear one but until then I'm 100% against them.

I think we'll have to disagree. I didn't say they'll tell the whole story, just that they can show an accurate one. Does what an officer/witness/etc see necessarily tell the whole story?

And if cameras don't tell the whole story, why would an officer wish to review it before writing their report?

Until we get the technology you wish, I'll settle for what we can get. And as BBI said, they exonerate the officers way more than incriminate them. Heck I want more of them, I'm with Kirk when he says all questioning needs to be recorded.

 

[phylodog]

I think we'll have to disagree. I didn't say they'll tell the whole story, just that they can show an accurate one. Does what an officer/witness/etc see necessarily tell the whole story?

And if cameras don't tell the whole story, why would an officer wish to review it before writing their report?

Until we get the technology you wish, I'll settle for what we can get. And as BBI said, they exonerate the officers way more than incriminate them. Heck I want more of them, I'm with Kirk when he says all questioning needs to be recorded.

I'm ok with disagreeing, especially when it remains civil.

The issue is that according to SCOTUS, an officer's actions are to be determined reasonable or not from the perspective of a reasonable officer given the same information in the moment. It gets tough to do when a camera picks up more or less critical information than an officer does. Video is always going to hold a lot more weight in a courtroom than eyewitness testimony whether it be from an officer, a suspect or a bystander. When a camera reveals information that was not available to an officer we end up with a skewed perspective and unreasonable decisions based on them.

My days of working the street are over but you can bet that if I was required to wear a camera, and those put in a position to judge my actions got to see the video to try and hang me than I'd want the same courtesy extended to me. Any other way is simply an attempt to hold modern day witch trials.

BBI is correct, they do. The issue will end up with a similar result as when DNA hit the scene. It very quickly became "if you don't have DNA evidence then it didn't happen" which is crap. I watched a multi time convicted felon drop three ounces of crack cocaine when I was a rookie and lost the cast because we didn't do a DNA test on the paper he had it wrapped in. If every officer of an agency is required to wear a camera it will very quickly become "if you don't have video then it didn't happen" which is going to result in more criminals walking the streets and more cops being prosecuted for no valid reason.

Like I said, I truly wish the technology was there but it ain't and I see a whole lot more problems with cameras than I see benefits at this point.