- Messages
- 8,637
- Reactions
- 12,895
Lots of other things to worry about.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Video camera on your CCW - thoughts?
- Thread Starter Member 75490
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ccw
- Messages
- 1,267
- Reactions
- 2,503
The same arguments were made when cops started being issued body cams. It will just be used to crucify you, They will use it to nit pic your performance, etc... But 20 years later more than 95% of the time it shows the cops doing exactly as they were trained.
I'm going to be adding cameras to my next truck forward and rear looking. And the same detractors will say "It may prove the other drivers case" And it may... Or it may show I was in the right. Previously I was a commercial driver with a very good record. I'll take my chances.
I doubt I would buy one for my edc pistol. Its something that would add to the weight , make getting a holster more difficult, and in 60 years i have yet to shoot anyone. But I drive every day! Good Luck DR
I'm going to be adding cameras to my next truck forward and rear looking. And the same detractors will say "It may prove the other drivers case" And it may... Or it may show I was in the right. Previously I was a commercial driver with a very good record. I'll take my chances.
I doubt I would buy one for my edc pistol. Its something that would add to the weight , make getting a holster more difficult, and in 60 years i have yet to shoot anyone. But I drive every day! Good Luck DR
- Messages
- 2,210
- Reactions
- 5,026
Video is a double-edged sword - it may help acquit you, or put you behind bars. The big problem is that context in a threat encounter is everything, and this device will not tell the whole story. It wouldn't show your attempts to avoid a confrontation, de-escalate the situation, or evade the aggressor. It would only show you drawing, firing, and the aftermath, which is nowhere near enough context to help you in a criminal trial. Juries want to see you doing everything possible to avoid a threat and only drawing your weapon as a last resort, not a 4-second clip of you mag dumping into a another person.
It's also a bad idea to assume that you will do everything right in a threat encounter. Everyone makes mistakes, and the last thing you want in a court of law is evidence of you screwing up - drawing and brandishing when no threat of death or harm is apparent, shooting someone you think is armed but is not, shooting someone who is running away, saying or doing other stupid stuff unintentionally because your adrenaline is pumping and you're not thinking clearly... you don't want that video to be seen at trial, especially on something that can land you in jail if misinterpreted by that jury of your peers.
In my opinion this product might be relevant for police officers, but even that is a stretch because they need context just as much as we do, which is why they wear body cams. They just might get more use out of it because they are able to draw and present a weapon to gain compliance of a suspect, providing more potential footage to add to the context of the event. Civilians don't have arrest authority and generally shouldn't hold people at gunpoint. The gun should only come out to stop a threat.
I don't recommend using any recording device because the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor, and video footage can give them evidence against you just as much as it might help your case. Also, the mere presence of a bodycam or other device may set the wrong impression with the jury and make it appear as though you were looking for a fight, are paranoid, or potentially irrational... and since nobody on the jury would even consider wearing a bodycam, they'd be able to sell that pretty easily. That being said, if you are absolutely hellbent on having one, the body cam is a much better option than this thing.
It's also a bad idea to assume that you will do everything right in a threat encounter. Everyone makes mistakes, and the last thing you want in a court of law is evidence of you screwing up - drawing and brandishing when no threat of death or harm is apparent, shooting someone you think is armed but is not, shooting someone who is running away, saying or doing other stupid stuff unintentionally because your adrenaline is pumping and you're not thinking clearly... you don't want that video to be seen at trial, especially on something that can land you in jail if misinterpreted by that jury of your peers.
In my opinion this product might be relevant for police officers, but even that is a stretch because they need context just as much as we do, which is why they wear body cams. They just might get more use out of it because they are able to draw and present a weapon to gain compliance of a suspect, providing more potential footage to add to the context of the event. Civilians don't have arrest authority and generally shouldn't hold people at gunpoint. The gun should only come out to stop a threat.
I don't recommend using any recording device because the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor, and video footage can give them evidence against you just as much as it might help your case. Also, the mere presence of a bodycam or other device may set the wrong impression with the jury and make it appear as though you were looking for a fight, are paranoid, or potentially irrational... and since nobody on the jury would even consider wearing a bodycam, they'd be able to sell that pretty easily. That being said, if you are absolutely hellbent on having one, the body cam is a much better option than this thing.
- Messages
- 23,402
- Reactions
- 112,059
No , not for me.
I want to focus on the threat...and not worry 'bout anything else at that time.
No wanting to push buttons , flip a switch...or have items hanging off my firearm.
Simple seems better when it comes to self defense.
Andy
I want to focus on the threat...and not worry 'bout anything else at that time.
No wanting to push buttons , flip a switch...or have items hanging off my firearm.
Simple seems better when it comes to self defense.
Andy
- Messages
- 2,594
- Reactions
- 9,934
Might look interesting on a flintlock though
- Messages
- 4,925
- Reactions
- 12,008
Best not to help the government prove their case against you. The ccw should be out at the worst possible moment. Probably a body cam would capture more of an escalating event.
- Messages
- 2,391
- Reactions
- 7,122
As @Camelfilter noted, you need to be able to justify your DGU. I understand "innocent until proven guilty" but in a DGU self-defense case, you are admitting that you shot someone, possibly killing them. Would this help? Not sure. Since it will not show the situation until you are likely on target and pulling the trigger it will probably not show what led up to the situation like a body cam.
It's not about "hoping the police believe them." it is learning to be able to articulate why your actions were necessary. All of us carrying guns need to be prepared for this reality. Apologize if I am, and hoping I'm not coming across as preachy but this is a critical element of the concealed carry lifestyle.
I guess I should take credit for raising this in another thread, hu.
Sometimes sharing too much information can potentially have a detrimental effect. Someone entering your home uninvited has ill intent and a "threat" is already implied. Your sworn statement that you felt in imminent danger is non-disputable.
Oregon is a "stand your ground" state. In the use of deadly force, ORS 161.209 says that a person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person when:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.
In the OP's example, #2 is all you need and does not stipulate the "use or threatened imminent use" or "unlawful deadly physical force againt a person" as a condition. As Stomper said, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that your sworn statement was false and that you were in no way under any threat.
I say.... don't muddy the waters and quit while you're ahead.
Sometimes sharing too much information can potentially have a detrimental effect. Someone entering your home uninvited has ill intent and a "threat" is already implied. Your sworn statement that you felt in imminent danger is non-disputable.
Oregon is a "stand your ground" state. In the use of deadly force, ORS 161.209 says that a person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person when:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.
In the OP's example, #2 is all you need and does not stipulate the "use or threatened imminent use" or "unlawful deadly physical force againt a person" as a condition. As Stomper said, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that your sworn statement was false and that you were in no way under any threat.
I say.... don't muddy the waters and quit while you're ahead.
Last Edited:
Such video is only likely to be used against you.
Context matters - any whatever led up to you pulling a gun and shooting someone matters. If none of that is on video, then a prosecution gets to make it up and top it off with the cherry on top: you putting lead into a bad guy in full 4k white balanced video.
I'd think it's just a bad idea. Get a home surveillance system. Get a car surveillance system. Between those and the fact that security cameras and other people's home cameras are just about everywhere, that should get you your context.
Getting a gun's eye view of a man dying isn't going to help your case. Then again, IANAL, so what do I know?
Context matters - any whatever led up to you pulling a gun and shooting someone matters. If none of that is on video, then a prosecution gets to make it up and top it off with the cherry on top: you putting lead into a bad guy in full 4k white balanced video.
I'd think it's just a bad idea. Get a home surveillance system. Get a car surveillance system. Between those and the fact that security cameras and other people's home cameras are just about everywhere, that should get you your context.
Getting a gun's eye view of a man dying isn't going to help your case. Then again, IANAL, so what do I know?
I think I saw an ad for a version of this device advertised in the latest copy of "Farm and Ranch life" that dispensed with the camera and replaced it with a remote start for your backhoe. 
I guess that wouldn't work out very well in the city, Oh well...
I guess that wouldn't work out very well in the city, Oh well...
- Messages
- 8,387
- Reactions
- 21,070
No camera, just stick with...
...the Tac-Sac!
...the Tac-Sac!
- Messages
- 18,744
- Reactions
- 45,465
It's stupid. Keep all garbage off your carry guns that doesn't need to be there, period. If it does not directly aid in getting the job done it does not belong.
Bottom line, If you're overly paranoid were you have to have a video camera in the unlikely event you'll be in a SD shooting than it should be a body camera. You know how the media shows a 10 second clip of an event and fabricates previous 30 or 60 seconds? That is the type of footage you would be getting with a gun mounted a camera.
The only conceivable use of a video camera on a weapon would be for training purposes and even then a body worn would probably make more sense. On a CCW weapon? No way no day.
Bottom line, If you're overly paranoid were you have to have a video camera in the unlikely event you'll be in a SD shooting than it should be a body camera. You know how the media shows a 10 second clip of an event and fabricates previous 30 or 60 seconds? That is the type of footage you would be getting with a gun mounted a camera.
The only conceivable use of a video camera on a weapon would be for training purposes and even then a body worn would probably make more sense. On a CCW weapon? No way no day.
- Messages
- 18,744
- Reactions
- 45,465
If people will buy it someone will make it.
Member 3687
- Messages
- 1,202
- Reactions
- 3,160
Security cameras in your home is one thing as it could show Vid leading up to the shooting and possible justification.
But a camera on the barrel of your gun sounds like a SNUFF film plot to me and possibly to many of the jurors.
I understand the thought behind it but in today's anti-gun world I do not see enough pros to take the chance of it going my way.
It would be cool maybe for gun reviews to show recoil as it states in the ADD or training purposes but I would not carry it every day.
Just my thoughts
But a camera on the barrel of your gun sounds like a SNUFF film plot to me and possibly to many of the jurors.
I understand the thought behind it but in today's anti-gun world I do not see enough pros to take the chance of it going my way.
It would be cool maybe for gun reviews to show recoil as it states in the ADD or training purposes but I would not carry it every day.
Just my thoughts
There's a guy in my neighborhood that has those hanging off his truck.
Every time I see them, I'm tempted to go spray paint them blue just to eff with him.
- Messages
- 42,878
- Reactions
- 111,411
A body camera would be much better IMO. A body cam would record everything before and after the gun gets drawn and that is important.
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Vortex spitfire 5x prism gen 2 w/ crimson trace rad pro 3 moa piggyback
- Started by quin2021
- Replies: 0
-
Wtt Aero precision ar 15 for 10mm handgun or 357 revolver
- Started by quin2021
- Replies: 0