All cop guns should be equipped with a video camera.

[joshcryer]

That way whenever they murder people in cold blood it is caught on video. Say the video automatically starts as the gun is retrieved from the holster. Body cameras of course are sensible, but they don't always tell the story, but the view of the gun, the view that the officer sees as he's pulling the trigger, that view will tell the story.

It may sound macabre and I don't want to really look at the footage that such cameras would provide, but I think it'd make cops think twice before pulling their guns, much more so than a body camera ever would.

I think trigger happy cops is a very bad practice, and I think that the culture surrounding "shoot first" is really bad and needs to be put in check. As I say, and as some have noted, police kill more unarmed people in this country than terrorists. And yet we have TSA and tens of thousands of people hired to defend us from terrorists. Our freedom to simply board a plane is put in serious check over a threat which is statistically lower than most things, like merely walking down the street.

[MADem]

1. That's one of those good ideas that seems half-baked and impossible right now, but I think it

is one that might be implemented in future. It's all down to the technology, and getting the parts to be small enough so that they're integrated into the weapon without any drama. Also, the camera would have to be able to take a lickin' and keep on tickin', because you know the po-po would be trying to smash that thing up so it didn't record (oh, darn!).

I would love to see police with deployable butterfly nets--fire a shot that has a big ass net on it, that captures a fleeing suspect. Way better than shooting people in the back, certainly. They need to find a way to make a net that unpacks fast and chases after the suspect. We're a few years away from good ones, but they have tried this out before:

Laughing test models a bonus!

[joshcryer]

5. I thought "I should patent this!" But they exist already.

The technology is there, it exists. There are patents for it. It's not really beyond implementation. I think the "auto-record on holster removal" bit doesn't exist but someone is probably patenting it as I speak or I'd file something. It's not that big of a deal when you think about it.

It's literally a cell phone camera mounted on a gun with an activate sequence when it's removed from the holster. Wouldn't necessarily prevent cops from discharging their batteries, but you could have it log its battery use and consumption and whatnot. So COPS that are constantly discharging their batteries would be suspect.

[JonLP24]

18. The recently fired Phoenix Police Chief did implement this

The police unions hated it as well as many of his other reforms. Fought him tooth & nail -- a Republican City Council called for his firing & within days it occurred. Also caught one saying things he shouldn't be saying

Likely means they're going to be more polite but better behavior all-around. Not to mention it would help with convictions. The major thing is the costs & they love to talk about how much it costs but the benefits outweigh the costs & so much more is being spent on so much worse such as Sheriff Joe's salary and his lawsuits as a result of his actions.

[merrily]

2. Yes. Remember, though, video from security camera inside police stations has disappeared.

So, there have to be consequences when the camera is not operating or video vanishes

[joshcryer]

7. A third party responsible for video recording might work.

Police don't decide when cameras are on, they don't decide when data is transferred, a third party does it all, and they are held responsible when something is lost. (That would give the third party an incentive to look at the lost data and see why it happened, so while some might be able to destroy evidence, in the long run it'd become less likely.)

[merrily]

10. When video of a beating or death insdie a police station disappears, an objective third party does

not leap to my mind. I can't speak for anyone else.

However, fine, putting the consequences on the third party might help, too. Obviously if he she or it has an airtight defense, they have it. But the victim should not own all the burden of a mysterious disappearance.

[joshcryer]

11. I don't know if you can pass a law for incompetence.

Or error. I mean, stuff does get lost. That happens. Snowden noted that when he talked about the NYT failing to properly redact data (and I thought John Oliver was wrong to mock it, Snowden made a legitimate point).

So passing a law that says "data lost, guilty!" is probably unreasonable, as far as I'm concerned.

But setting up a third party that literally makes sure all the cameras are charged and operating normally at least allows a prosecutor to bring the "charging and operating normally guy" on the stand to question the behavior of the cop.

Prosecutor: "Did you properly charge the equipment?"

Third Party: "Yes sir, it was operating normally, and I did a diagnostic, nothing was wrong with the equipment."

Prosecutor: "Is there a reason the battery life could've been 0 when Officer Smith shot the victim?"

Third Party: "It was a new battery, fully charged, and there was no sign that the battery was malfunctioning."

See what I'm getting at? Make it so that the police officers don't have an out, they can't fuck with the equipment because they can get caught. As I noted in another post, a battery discharge log could be had, so cops trying to make sure their cameras weren't working would be sniffed out. Do regular audits of the cameras, and they get caught. Make a law against regularly malfunctioning cameras. But random malfunctions shouldn't be a law.

[merrily]

12. I'm confident someone can write a law. If it was sheer accident, that can be proven in court, just

as it always is when it is a defense to crime.

[joshcryer]

14. Eh, laws protect technological error.

If a cars' brakes don't work and someone plows into some people they aren't going to go to jail for it. Likewise if a cops camera isn't working in the commission of a killing that doesn't mean they're automatically guilty of murder.

There's no way that passes a SCOTUS.

But if the cop in question had a habit of fully discharging their camera battery or if their lens got regularly scratched up or if the recorder kept breaking magically (all due to the third party making sure the equipment was working) you could use that as evidence against them.

[merrily]

15. "There's no way that passes a SCOTUS." Ridiculous claim about a law whose wording you've not seen

and does not yet exist.

Once again, I stand by my prior posts and, once again, I'm done.

[joshcryer]

16. Fair enough.

Write the legislation and get it passed. I'd be interested in the wording. I'll await your message telling me all about it.

Snowden at least agrees that humans are fallible.

[JonLP24]

19. Something like that should logically have a proper chain-of-custody

Logically & reality are two different things but Phoenix police was able to set up a body camera system so when someone filed a formal complaint IA looked at body camera tape of the officer & found evidence of his unethical behavior so it is possible. The recently fired Phoenix Police Chief was fired because the Police Unions opposed him & the Republicans @ city council opposed him too so it may not be politically popular depending on jurisdictions.

[Cheese Sandwich]

3. Cops shouldn't carry live ammo. They should get beanbag rounds, rubber bullets, something like that.

They should use less lethal weapons like the ones they use to break up political protests.

Something less likely to kill. Cops have shown they can't stop killing people. Take away their bullets.

[joshcryer]

8. I like that.

Unfortunately, we're a gun culture, and there's no way cops give up their guns, they'd argue it'd empower criminals. And they might not be wrong on that count, because, like I said, we're a gun culture. Guns are everydamnwhere.

[Amishman]

23. all around us

I don't think a lot of people realize just how many guns are stashed away in our neighborhoods. over 300 million of them, we have more guns than cars.

They are all around us every day, just out of sight.

[Binkie The Clown]

4. That leaves the recorded video in the possession and control of the police.

There needs to be a way to be sure that the videos are controlled by independent investigators, and cannot be buried by the police. Maybe it's the streets that need video cameras, not the cops.

[joshcryer]

6. I don't like that. That's the UK's solution.

If you really want video to be preserved, you could make it auto-upload to the internet after a certain period of time. Corrupt cops could still destroy the recorder, and whatnot, but that'd need some explaining.

[DetlefK]

17. Easy: Just take away the preferential judicial treatment of cops.

If a cop fires his gun and kills somebody and there is no video to prove that he did so in self-defense, then it was manslaughter. Simple as that.

[HereSince1628]

24. That also leaves control of the narrative about why the gun was pulled in control of police...

I don't think any of these camera suggestions are going to be perfect.

Multiple cameras are going to be required if video is going to be effective...dash cams, body cams and gun cams in combination might catch enough of the story to get beyond most the lying narratives currently spun...but even so I'm thinking there will be exceptions, probably even disturbing suggestions.

[Man from Pickens]

9. I have an alternative proposal

All cops are to patrol unarmed.

They can call for backup if they encounter a hostile armed person suspected of committing a crime.

(This is basically how it works in the UK.)

[joshcryer]

13. I can get behind that.

But the reality is that we're a gun obsessed culture, 4-5% of people are walking around with a gun any given day or something like that (concealed carry). So in any given group of 20 people some guy has a gun stashed somewhere. It's pretty alarming.

[JonLP24]

20. A cop shooting someone down is far from the only problem

I'd argue it isn't the main problem but certainly a symptom of it. There are 4th amendment violations, false or wrongful arrests, manufacturing probable cause. You probably wouldn't believe how often people are stopped without cause & searched for warrants because if they do have warrant probable cause doesn't apply but if they don't they hand them back the ID & the stop ends. Body cameras won't solve everything such as how often cops "smell" marijuana to justify a stop but taking away the guns doesn't help with the other problems.

Besides it is easier for a cop to get a way with shooting someone down than physically assaulting them. It is incredibly rare for a cop to face charges at trial & even rarer for a charge above manslaughter. A cop in the southwest shot a suspect in the back running away in handcuffs(Neveda IIRC). Convicted on a manslaughter type of charge had most of his penalties reduced by the judge and is now back on the force.

[LunaSea]

21. How about a gun that streams video when unholstered?

Like this pepper spray-

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-defender-smart-personal-protection

[Lee-Lee]

22. It will probably get there someday- the tech isn't ready yet

You would need an incredibly small camera, with tiny battery and storage, capable of running on standby for days and hours of recording once drawn.

Then make that camera 100% waterproof.

Then make it so super strong it can handle being mounted to a firearm and the intense shock waves and G-forces that will happen every time it's fired.

It can be done now with rifles and shotguns in a Gopro sized package. Integrated into a pistol the tech isn't quite there.

But it will be.