4 ms·

This may be a dumb idea, but how hard would it be to put a camera on the gun, and activate it via the trigger. It seems like even a few low res photos of what t

by Volundr 12y ago

This may be a dumb idea, but how hard would it be to put a camera on the gun, and activate it via the trigger. It seems like even a few low res photos of what the gun was aiming at could go a long way in investigating office involved shootings.

XorNot 12y ago
This technology exists. The camera starts recording the moment the safety is off. It's not been deployed yet because of complaints that it reduces accuracy - which, last I checked the attachment was fairly big (no idea why - a modern cellphone camera + battery would be tiny). But we absolutely should have this. Ideally a police-issue firearm which had it milled right into the chassis.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > last I checked the attachment was fairly big Making room for the camera by removing a few bullets would help reduce the numbers of innocent bystanders who are shot. Being less accurate would be pretty scary. http://www.popehat.com/2013/12/05/nypd-baby-you-know-we-love-you-why-do-you-make-us-angry-like-that/ http://www.popehat.com/2013/12/05/nypd-baby-you-know-we-love... > As long as you ignore the fact that the shooting victims were innocent bystanders, hitting two people with three shots represents unusual excellence in marksmanship for the NYPD, matching another recent incident in which skilled NYPD officers were able to hit their target and nine bystanders with only 16 bullets. Overall the NYPD usually requires about 331 rounds to hit 54 targets, of which 14 will be innocent bystanders, 24 will be dogs, and 16 will be people the NYPD was actually aiming at. Statistically, if you aren't a dog, it is slightly more dangerous to be the person the NYPD was shooting at than a bystander (16 people out of 331 shots for intended targets for a 4.8% hit rate vs. 14 people out of 331 shots for bystanders, a 4.2% hit rate.) NYPD has a better success rate for other weapons, and certain factors, like shooting unarmed people in the back, tend to increase hit rates.
- bmelton 12y ago
  So, perhaps the popularity of the safety-less Glock is the reason why this hasn't taken off?
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    As my shooting instructor always says "Your number one safety is your finger" meaning leave it off the trigger until you have something in your sights.
    - bmelton 12y ago
      Agreed. And FWIW, I'm not suggesting you change the design of the Glocks (though I vastly prefer the palm trigger on the 1911s), but thinking it through, I don't know if a camera that activated at the moment the trigger pulled would be all that worthwhile. Perhaps it would (assuming that the timing meant that it was able to capture more than the flash of the bullet) in certain situations, but I think that the shoulder-mounted cameras that are always-on provide far more consistent value in protecting all parties involved to merit serious consideration of trigger cameras.
tjohns 12y ago
I've seen some police departments do this already with their tasers. The moment the safety is disengaged, it starts recording. For example, here's one of the add-on modules Taser makes for this: http://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video/taser-cam-hd http://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video/taser-cam-hd
tzs 12y ago
That would probably be more prejudicial than probative, because the photos would be out of context. Better would be something continuously recording video on a loop that saves an extract spanning any firings of the gun. Outside of action movies, though, I doubt many officers shoot people or other targets that they are not looking at, so a head mounted camera would probably be sufficient for almost all practical purposes.
sb23 12y ago
Could it activate via accelerometer instead of the trigger, so you get the before as well as the after?

by Volundr 12y ago

XorNot 12y ago

This technology exists. The camera starts recording the moment the safety is off. It's not been deployed yet because of complaints that it reduces accuracy - which, last I checked the attachment was fairly big (no idea why - a modern cellphone camera + battery would be tiny). But we absolutely should have this. Ideally a police-issue firearm which had it milled right into the chassis.

DanBC 12y ago
> last I checked the attachment was fairly big Making room for the camera by removing a few bullets would help reduce the numbers of innocent bystanders who are shot. Being less accurate would be pretty scary. http://www.popehat.com/2013/12/05/nypd-baby-you-know-we-love-you-why-do-you-make-us-angry-like-that/ http://www.popehat.com/2013/12/05/nypd-baby-you-know-we-love... > As long as you ignore the fact that the shooting victims were innocent bystanders, hitting two people with three shots represents unusual excellence in marksmanship for the NYPD, matching another recent incident in which skilled NYPD officers were able to hit their target and nine bystanders with only 16 bullets. Overall the NYPD usually requires about 331 rounds to hit 54 targets, of which 14 will be innocent bystanders, 24 will be dogs, and 16 will be people the NYPD was actually aiming at. Statistically, if you aren't a dog, it is slightly more dangerous to be the person the NYPD was shooting at than a bystander (16 people out of 331 shots for intended targets for a 4.8% hit rate vs. 14 people out of 331 shots for bystanders, a 4.2% hit rate.) NYPD has a better success rate for other weapons, and certain factors, like shooting unarmed people in the back, tend to increase hit rates.
bmelton 12y ago
So, perhaps the popularity of the safety-less Glock is the reason why this hasn't taken off?
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  As my shooting instructor always says "Your number one safety is your finger" meaning leave it off the trigger until you have something in your sights.
  - bmelton 12y ago
    Agreed. And FWIW, I'm not suggesting you change the design of the Glocks (though I vastly prefer the palm trigger on the 1911s), but thinking it through, I don't know if a camera that activated at the moment the trigger pulled would be all that worthwhile. Perhaps it would (assuming that the timing meant that it was able to capture more than the flash of the bullet) in certain situations, but I think that the shoulder-mounted cameras that are always-on provide far more consistent value in protecting all parties involved to merit serious consideration of trigger cameras.

tjohns 12y ago

I've seen some police departments do this already with their tasers. The moment the safety is disengaged, it starts recording. For example, here's one of the add-on modules Taser makes for this: http://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video/taser-cam-hd http://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video/taser-cam-hd

tzs 12y ago

That would probably be more prejudicial than probative, because the photos would be out of context. Better would be something continuously recording video on a loop that saves an extract spanning any firings of the gun. Outside of action movies, though, I doubt many officers shoot people or other targets that they are not looking at, so a head mounted camera would probably be sufficient for almost all practical purposes.

sb23 12y ago

Could it activate via accelerometer instead of the trigger, so you get the before as well as the after?