JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.

Should a concealed carrier wear a body cam?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 11.6%
  • No

    Votes: 54 78.3%
  • Maybe, here's why.

    Votes: 7 10.1%

  • Total voters
    69
I'd say it depends on what articulable reason the wearer has for wearing it. If it's something along the lines of "funny and interesting things happen, and I got tired of wishing I'd recorded them" it's probably OK, and could be funny and interesting. If it's "because I might kill someone" I think that would raise a lot of red flags.
 
I'd say it depends on what articulable reason the wearer has for wearing it. If it's something along the lines of "funny and interesting things happen, and I got tired of wishing I'd recorded them" it's probably OK, and could be funny and interesting. If it's "because I might kill someone" I think that would raise a lot of red flags.
Not that any sane carrier or owner WANTS to kill or shoot anyone...carriers should always be thinking they might have to kill someone or an animal and what not. At least be mentally prepared. Don't carry a firearm unless you plan on using it. When truly necessary of course. Then again that's where the USCCA comes into play. Join today >;D
 
None of what follows is legal advice:

I voted "maybe," but I tend to believe the correct answer is "yes, if you are a law abiding person living in a area where you are at risk of assaults, and if it's practical and affordable." I'm researching easily wearable devices.

Here's why.

First, it can typically only benefit the law abiding person. I have installed cameras on my cars, after watching hours of dash cam videos of incidents and seeing who was at fault. Since I'm an excellent driver and won't ever likely be at fault, it can only serve to benefit me b/c the odds are it will always be the other drivers' fault. Same logic applies. I will never be the instigator of a violent event, and the camera will only serve to exonerate me.

Secondly, as related to the exoneration point, the nuances of your 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments come into play. The unsophisticated don't understand how the criminal justice process works, relying on the misunderstood "he-said-she-said" as some get-out-of-jail-free card. That's not how it works. If the other party makes an accusation, you have a choice to either break your silence and relinquish your rights against self-incrimination, often meaning a sworn testimony subject to cross exam, or your remain silent as another person (and his 10 witnesses who are willing to commit perjury) accuses you of aggravated assault. Sophie's choice, so to speak. Not a good spot to be in if there's legitimate disagreement on facts.

Third, often in order to get your side heard, it's going to require months or years of extreme stress, and fees that could easily bankrupt the average person. Trials and lawyers are extremely expensive. It's well known that several of the Trump - team who were wrongly investigated and prosecuted were essentially bankrupted in legal fees. So "having your day in court" is not an aspirational goal. Much better to have - at best - the prosecutor conclude you were in the right and - at worst - your lawyer meet with the prosecutor and go over the video, or when a grand jury reviews the video, you swiftly and relatively inexpensively get a 'no bill.' Speaking of grand juries, the defense rarely gets to present evidence and certainly a defendant won't be testifying. However a video of the event would almost certainly be presented to a grand jury and that video might exonerate you.

Trial in the press is another angle: Cameras are unbiased witnesses that speak for themselves, and can be shared with others. A camera can defeat untrue allegations that you said racist remarks, that you started the altercation, that the other party was unarmed, etc. If you acted lawfully, you could swiftly defeat those accusations in the media. NO AMOUNT of you going on TV declaring your innocence will have the power of a video showing it to be true.

Let's look at the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman trial. After years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills and the risk of prison, he was exonerated after the jury determined Martin was in fact the aggressor. Imagine if that could have all been cleared up with a go-pro video in the prosecutor's office before charges ever preferred against Zimmerman... Zimmerman was innocent, but his life and finances were ruined forever... Don't fixate here on whether you agree or not with Zimmerman's choices, it's a known example that illustrates the point. Other examples include the bulk of allegations of police misconduct. Almost universally, the police videos will exonerate them and, in the instances where there was misconduct, that is rooted out too.

Forth point - let's look at the very important ability to dissect a video, identify threats, identify aggressor weapons that often "disappear" and identify subjects who might have acted and then fled. It's not hard to come up with scenarios that spiral out of control and individuals or weapons that disappear into the crowd. Say a mob threaten you with a gun, you draw and shoot the perp, their gun is shuffled off into the mob and disappears, and the mob then tells arriving police you are the aggressor and they are unarmed.... Very sticky situation that a video would easily clear up.

Fifth point - In the modern era, with crime and civil liability as common as it seems and people's expectations to see videos, I doubt any reasonable person would be suspect of you recording a video.

Sixth point - An attacker or aggressor instigating an event might be recording the video anyway. His video might delete or not capture the part where his assault occurs, but only show your response. And a video that starts with your "attack" will make you appear as the aggressor and him as the victim.

Seventh point - Insurance purposes. For those that carry self defense insurance, some of those policies are paid out optionally by the board that votes to determine if your case has merit. Would be very good to be able to show them a video.

Eight - citing RCW 9.73.030 - again not legal advice but my interpretation is that but if unsure a simple announcement to any threat they are being recorded appears to satisfy the law and might also benefit the wearer in several ways. It may de-escalate the threat, and it is a great defense that you tried to de-escalate the event by recording and telling the other party you're recording it.
Regardless, my reading of the RCW is that it's meant to protect against private conversations where recipients are not face-to-face (e.g. over the phone or web). Threats communicated in person and in public are not seemingly covered by this, and if so certainly fall under the exclusion as a 'conversation which conveys threats of bodily harm or other unlawful demands...". Further, an attack might not even be spoken and an action is not a spoken communication protected by this. I'm not your lawyer nor paid nor giving advice, but I don't see how recording an illegal attack or threatening communication would be covered and it seems there's an exclusion, in any event. And if you wanted ultra protections, an announcement (or a big yellow button that says "I'm recording you") obtains consent.

"RCW 9.73.030
Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:
(a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;
(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.
(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.
(4) An employee of any regularly published newspaper, magazine, wire service, radio station, or television station acting in the course of bona fide news gathering duties on a full-time or contractual or part-time basis, shall be deemed to have consent to record and divulge communications or conversations otherwise prohibited by this chapter if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers. Withdrawal of the consent after the communication has been made shall not prohibit any such employee of a newspaper, magazine, wire service, or radio or television station from divulging the communication or conversation."

In summary, and on balance, while I don't live in an area nor travel in areas particularly violent, it's not an urgent item for me to buy and wear, I do see this as likely in my future. I've illuminated the myriad of good reasons to have it, particularly if you obey the law, act to diffuse situations, and you live in a particularly violent hot spot. If I lived in one of these urban areas that have recently become particularly violent, you bet your *** I'd be wearing a camera and have them on my car and home at all times. I believe the key is to practice behavior that verbally defuses situations, and eliminate any hostile language such as threats or slurs from your language, which in total will be invaluable on a video in your defense if you ever need it.
I ain't a reed'n all dat!

For me, my answer is no.:s0155:
 
I was driving to town the other day and some idiot in another car came up fast on my rear and proceeded to tailgate me quite vigorously for a few miles. I saw that they had a dash cam. People that are stupid shouldn't have them due to self-incrimination.
 
Since a lot of folks on here are against self insurance and body cams, probably so they themselves don't get caught wrong-doing, I'm getting a body cam now. I run into a lot of interesting things on my day to day out and about. Things I wish were recorded. Also to protect me in case something does arise.

Also I will note that in my past case in Arizona (which after 3 years I won at trial) I had a dash cam in my vehicle during that shooting in defense of a third person from a homicidal public menace, but the crooked law enforcement there deleted the footage, so there is that you also have to take into account.
 
Shows zero level of intent unless there's obvious intent on the video itself. That's like saying having a dash cam in your vehicle shows some level of intent. Or cameras at your place of residence shows some level of intent.

Not exactly an analog.

Driving is a normal day to day activity and 20 second on FB or YT will give you a day's worth of crashes and calamities to watch. So it is normal to anticipate something worth filming, and those cameras have become commonplace.

Now, other than LEOs and protesters, who do yo know that normally wears a camera? THAT is where the intent becomes an issue.
 
Not exactly an analog.

Driving is a normal day to day activity and 20 second on FB or YT will give you a day's worth of crashes and calamities to watch. So it is normal to anticipate something worth filming, and those cameras have become commonplace.

Now, other than LEOs and protesters, who do yo know that normally wears a camera? THAT is where the intent becomes an issue.

Carrying a firearm is a normal day to day activity for most folks on here. At least it has been for me for years.
 
I don't think "privacy" extends to public places. A person can video a crowd of people, a bunch, four or one if they're in public. BUT before addressing your particular issue, I'd send a letter to the AG and get a written response. We wouldn't want to offend anyone and have them cry!
 
Now if you just got the camera and then shortly after you deliberately put yourself in a situation and have a history of confrontations, then that's an issue. Like anything...have one if you want, don't have one if you want. Don't make a lick of difference to me. I just know I'm gonna start wearing one. If I can find a decent one for a decent price.
 
Carrying a firearm is a normal day to day activity for most folks on here. At least it has been for me for years.

Acknowledged. I carry to mow the grass.

My point is that, while it is no more fair for people to have to worry about whether your camera implies confrontational intent (I do not say that it does) than it is to say that decorating your pistol with Trump or a Skull and Crossbones, those are both kind of realities.
 
Okay, here's an angle you can take - and MAYBE make some money off of with the whole body cam angle... you're now a Vlogger. If you have a Google account, you have a YouTube channel. You can upload the footage - edited or raw - to YouTube. Get enough views & you can get "monetized" and make some coin off your daily like. NOW if you happen to have an incident and the camera is called to question - you can say you're normally wearing it for your YouTube Channel and it happened to catch the incident.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top