Technology & Our Future
Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
Two technology related items are on the Officer.com website this week. One is the poll question about the impact of cell phone cameras / videos on how we police in today’s day and age. The other is an article about the use of electro-muscular disruption (EMD) weapons and where such weapons are placed in the Use of Force guidelines. Both items represent changes in policing as a result of technologies developed / accepted in the past decade (in general). That realization gave me pause. I’ve been a cop since the early ’80s (if you count my time as an MP). I saw the mass switchover from revolver to pistol. I saw the change from wood baton to synthetic to side-handle to friction lock. I saw the change from “stun gun” to EMD. I saw cell phones evolve from the brick you carried to the bluetooth-conneted earbud with the phone not even seen.
All such changes in our society equate to changes in how we police that society. One of the things I’ve often written about is the law enforcement community’s failure to evolve PROactively. If you think about it, most of our training evolves REactively as we correct identified performance shortfalls or have to change how we do business because of court decisions, insurance mandates, etc. Admittedly this is the nature of the business. Even when we patrol in an aggressive and PROactive manner we end up taking calls for service that leave us REacting in a given situation.
There are some companies / agencies out there trying to be progressive. I’ve recently seen a technique demonstrated wherein the officer’s camera-equipped cell phone could be used to look around corners without exposing the officer to potential in-coming fire. Way cool. In the dark? It might not work so well. That display screen gives off a substantial amount of light and tactics have to be kept in mind. Such use of a cell phone camera is an example of adjusting how we work to available technology.
One EMD manufacturer (I’m going out of my way not to use names here) has a video camera that attaches to the EMD weapon and activates when the safety on the weapon is turned off. I think this is a fantastic idea - and I wonder how long it will be before someone develops such technology for pistols. The miniaturization of electronics is soon going to make this a reality. The activation of such a camera could not be dependent on turning a safety on or off as some pistols don’t have safeties. Perhaps it could be activated when the finger touches the trigger?
The point of this blog entry and my question for you all is this: If such a technology existed - a video camera that turned on when you deployed your pistol - would you welcome it? What considerations would have to be identified and controlled by SOP when instituting the use of such technology?
I think pistol mounted cameras would cause as much harm as good. When will the camera be activated? How of often do officers unholster their weapon, but do not point it at someone? Police officers are already labeled “trigger happy”. The last thing officers need is inconclusive video of them being used against them if they are in actuality acting approiately
That technology has been around for several months (http://pistolcam.com/), and I think it’s a horrible idea. Guns are for shooting. The more you attach to them, the more there is to go wrong, and if there’s anything you want to work every time, it’s your gun. There are better ways to document uses of force. Leave the guns alone.
Any mention of cameras brings a corresponding discussion of recording. Then the lawyers get involved and the discussion gets slowed down as the debate turns to retention periods and compression schemes. Several UK Constabularies have instituted body worn video for foot beat patrols. As for mounting a camera on a weapon … it’s probably best not to mess with the feel and balance of the officer’s weapon.
Jim Hoerricks
Forensic Image Analyst and author of Forensic Photoshop - a comprehensive imaging workflow for forensic professionals