Rule #2: Never let the muzzle cover anything you are unwilling to destroy.: “Conspicuously and continuously violated, especially with pistols, Rule II applies whether you are involved in range practice, daily carry, or examination. If the weapon is assembled and in someone’s hands, it is capable of being discharged…If you are not willing to take a human life, do not cover a person with the muzzle.”
Placing a light on the weapon invites the user to apply it as a flashlight, pointing the muzzle of the gun in directions other than “safe” or “known target”. Not only is this poor safety practice, it is also tactically bad as it does not impose discipline upon the shooter. And, as Rick points out, a gun-mounted light makes the user a more visible to others, pretty much giving a central target to anyone in front of him. There is no reason that a peace officer cannot carry and use a seperate tailcap-switch flashlight to be drawn and used as needed, and stowed or discarded when it is a greater hazard than benefit to the user. Mounting a light on a pistol not only invites both an undesired relaxation of muzzle discipline and makes a target of the user, it also adds complexity to a piece of equipment intended to be used under stress. There is just no good argument for this.
Both the department I retired from and the one I’m on now issued weapons, but allowed an officer to carry his own if he qualified with it. Single action pistols like the colt were specifically prohibited though. I do know of a few departments where officers can carry them, but none where they are actually issued. But 1982 isn’t exactly recent.
When I played at LE, we were required to buy our own weapons subject to certain restrictions. Autoloaders had to be chambered in 9mm Luger or larger. Revolvers had to be .38 special or larger. Any gun subject to final administrative approval. Full-timers had pieces running heavily towards 9mm/.40 Glocks (because of price, mainly) with a smattering of other pieces. Part-timers tended to run what they brung, meaning they tended to use a piece they already owned, rather than go out and buy one just for the job.
In any case, 1982 is hardly ancient history.
It’s better than a quarter-century ago. Nearly every profession and job has seen a revolution in new tools, techniques, and even entire new processes. Law enforcement has changed quite a bit in this time.
So yeah, in professional terms, it might as well be ancient history. For that matter, we do things a good bit differently now than when I entered the full-time workforce in the early-1990s.
puppygod, Scumpup, did you look at the size of those things? They’re huge! I can’t go to the website now (blocked by work), but it was the size of half a man’s fist.
BTW, I don’t think that this camera would “help create a clearer picture of what actually happened.” In a few circumstances, perhaps, but in the vast majority of cases, I think it’d be pretty useless.
buttonjockey308 touched on this subject earlier. The camera can only record what the gun is pointed at, and possibly some objects around the periphery. This makes it practically useless in determining whether any particular shooting was justified by the actions leading up to it. Was the perp shooting at the cop first? Was he armed with a knife? The pistolcam would not record such info – not unless the cop had first drawn his gun, which would be rare.
Exactly. If you want an evidentiary record a helmet cam is a much better idea. If a future pistol cam is really really small there’s no harm including it as an auxilary to the helmetcam, but a pistol cam alone isn’t going to give juries much information beyond what they currently get from ballistics evidence…that is, Officer So-and-so pointed his gun at Person So-and-so, pulled the trigger, and Person So-and-so ended up with a bullet in his chest.
“Honestly your honor, I wasn’t trying to force a confession, I was just recording it.”
I think it is ridiculous. Like others have said, the reason for a shooting usually happens before and during the draw of the weapon. There just won’t be any useful footage. And I can’t help but think that the picture will be shakier than Cloverfield.
And every time the gun speaks, the picture gets jittery.
Look at dash cams. Whenever the police car is subject to some kind of shock (hitting another car, hitting a dip in the road, railroad tracks, etc.), it seems as if the standard dash cam has a half second loss of usefull video.
Interesting that your trip to the academy was so short in 1982. Even when my dad attended the academy in 1960 it was longer than 4 weeks. He was the first on his department to go to the academy.
Since this is about guns, mainly, I’ll point out that although who issues what may have changed, guns haven’t. Semi-autos have been around for over a century. Polymer frames go back to the 1970’s. If you knew no agency that issued semi’s in the 80’s, you weren’t paying attention.
Nobody in this metro area was issuing semi-autos in 1982. The first department I know of (in this area) that started issuing them standard was circa 1987. I vividly recall how everyone oohed and ahhed when these deputies showed up at a pistol cert with their shiny new Beretta 92F’s.
Everyone around here was issued .357 revolvers. We were the only department that used the full .357 round, everyone else was loading with 38’s… By 1991 we were the only agency that wasn’t issuing autos. So within that four year stretch it went from all revolvers to all autos. We switched in 1992 issuing S&W 5906. I opted to carry my Ruger.
But in 1982 nobody around here was issuing a semi-auto as a standard sidearm.
I was paying attention because in the early 80’s I was dying to carry a semi-auto. I hated shooting the .357 with the full loads. Once a department switched it gave us fodder to bug our department to get them.
I agree. This idea is aimed squarely at the police.
All that aside, the technology isn’t there. The camera is going to have to be set up for a specific field of focus and unless the person being shot at is in that zone it is worthless. It also doesn’t show the events leading up to the use of force so all it might record is someone getting shot. What it might actually do is force police to pull their gun at any event they think might require background evidence. “ignore the gun sir, I’m just taking your picture for future reference”
Helmet or shoulder cameras strike me as an altogether better idea. You want something that shows as closely as possible the totality of the event, not just the shot being discharged. Since so much in a shooting inquest hinges upon how an officer percieved the situation, having recorded video from his POV could be priceless.
Gun cameras have been used in aircraft for decades. If miniaturisation can bring them to civilian law enforcement without affecting the officer’s safety, I’ve no problem with it. That said, I think there’s a way to go. The one-second delay is rather foolish., for reasons already given. What I’d like to see is that the camera is on from the time the gun leaves the holster until the trigger finger pushes a pause button on the side of the gun. The moment the finger leaves - i.e. it’s on the trigger - the camera rolls until the finger is back on or the gun is in the holster. I don’t know if technology’s there yet: it would really have to be designed in to the gun. The actual product under discussion looks to be more suitable for integration as a shotgun attachment at the moment.
I would also like to see police wear helmet or shoulder cameras, but that might be too costly in the longer term.