Technology Aims to Track Police Firearms...Pictures and video on the website linked.
http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2014/10/29/new-technology-aims-track-police-firearms/?utm_source=SOCIAL&utm_medium=POST&utm_campaign=OHUB_SOCIAL (http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2014/10/29/new-technology-aims-track-police-firearms/?utm_source=SOCIAL&utm_medium=POST&utm_campaign=OHUB_SOCIAL)
If it could be done in real time the military application could be a game changer.
Not sure I see the purpose of this device. Not enough description of the technology to understand how it contacts 'the cloud' etc, to give locations and information.
It is something that could be a good thing or could or bad...understanding the technology and what it does is what I'd be interested in. It would seem it is a GPS based unit, It may actually interface with the persons radio (via Bluetooth?) to transmit its data. If I recall the "Tasers" have a sort of information built into their modules? (not yet that sophisticated)
Based on the data points mentioned, it would send data the the weapon is deployed, fired, when and what direction it was fired. Don't know if it has GPS tracking elevation markers? The signals are sent to alert the commanders of situation in progress. The data is to be stored for forensics study, documentation, evidence! (manipulated?/tainted?/lost?). As these electronics get smaller and smarter we may see even more data points exploited with this kind of technology! :o
It seems excessive to me. But I guess this is what the world is coming to with technology.
I'm willing to believe the gyroscopes can determine if the weapon went from vertical (holstered) to horizontal (drawn) and that the accelerometers can detect the weapon being fired.
IMHO, everything else is BS. Gyroscopes give rates of change in orientation. Rates have error bars and without real time continuous measurements of orientation and optimal estimation processing, absolute orientation won't happen. And the way the device is placed in the grip minimizes accuracy of left/right orientation.
Throw in errors in GPS positioning and orientation numbers will be of limited value. In simple scenarios, it could help separate incoming fire from outgoing fire.
But, the biggest question is what problem does it solve? To have any hope of interpreting the data, you'll have to trust the testimony of the officer. To me, this technology is about not trusting the officer.
I mainly see this device as a way to reduce officer morale and for attorneys to discredit honest cops.
I suspect departments won't buy it. But, if they do, expect a push to have it in your weapon.
Excessive is the problem. Saw where some were asking for body cameras for law enforcement.......I'd support the idea for politicians.
Heres the thing on body camera's. In locales where they have been implemented citizen complaints against officers have dropped by 90% significant amount (I can't quickly locate the citation).
Regardless of whether the camera's are changing the officers behaviors or if the citizens just don't bring frivolous complaints is moot. They are making a huge positive difference in policing.
No problem with police with cameras.
If a person makes a false complaint however, arrest them.
Quote from: Wolfie on November 03 2014 03:47:53 PM MST
No problem with police with cameras.
If a person makes a false complaint however, arrest them.
I would think you would need to prove malice on the part of the accuser. Perceptions are funny things.
If you have nothing to hide....
Does that sound familiar mister policeman? ;D
Quote from: sqlbullet on November 03 2014 08:22:56 AM MST
Heres the thing on body camera's. In locales where they have been implemented citizen complaints against officers have dropped by 90% significant amount (I can't quickly locate the citation).
Regardless of whether the camera's are changing the officers behaviors or if the citizens just don't bring frivolous complaints is moot. They are making a huge positive difference in policing.
I'd like to read the article if you run across it again. I can see the positives in some situations but maybe not so much in others.
Quote from: Raggedyman on November 07 2014 10:09:35 AM MST
If you have nothing to hide....
Does that sound familiar mister policeman? ;D
Contrary to popular belief, most police officers welcome the use of cameras. If not at first, the officers learn to like them once they find out that cameras get them out of a whole lot more trouble than they get them into. We don't have body cameras yet, but we have had dash mounted cameras since 2000. These cameras have dispelled multitudes of false complaints / allegations made against our members.
The body cams would be no different.
Good cops do and most are good cops.
Filing a false police report is a crime, if the citizen makes a false report they should be arrested.
Speaking of false reports/confusing reports...read through this info...Open carry is probably doomed!
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/swatting-one-thing-law-abiding-gun-owners-worry/?id=facebook&sid=fanpage_article_11-7-14 (https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/swatting-one-thing-law-abiding-gun-owners-worry/?id=facebook&sid=fanpage_article_11-7-14)
A false report is a person who "intends" to commit a crime. (A culpable state of mind)
A person who sees someone carrying a gun in the open and feels threatened and calls the police is not filing a false report.
That would be a unfounded complaint.
I open carry quite often and I've never had an issue, I just get mistaken for law enforcement once in a while. The weirdest question I was asked has been do I work at walmart.
Quote from: Wolfie on November 08 2014 02:24:23 PM MST
A false report is a person who "intends" to commit a crime. (A culpable state of mind)
A person who sees someone carrying a gun in the open and feels threatened and calls the police is not filing a false report.
That would be a unfounded complaint.
Actually, social media makes it easy tovdraw a distinction. It ought to be pretty straightforward to subpoena records from Facebook and the DU to verify that the person boasted about filing a false report.
Just cause they bragged about filing the report online doesn't mean they had criminal intent. It means they don't know the law and thought they had been a good samaritan and saved a life from a gang banger or one of those gun nuts who is about to snap.
What chaps my hide is when dispatch doesn't say back to a report of a man with a gun "Is he doing anything criminal? Cause carrying a gun is legal."
It will be interesting to see their data; unfiltered of course, to see if it give any value/benefit to the technology.
LEO body cameras offers this same info. ::)
Quote from: sqlbullet on November 10 2014 07:47:51 AM MST
Just cause they bragged about filing the report online doesn't mean they had criminal intent. It means they don't know the law and thought they had been a good samaritan and saved a life from a gang banger or one of those gun nuts who is about to snap.
What chaps my hide is when dispatch doesn't say back to a report of a man with a gun "Is he doing anything criminal? Cause carrying a gun is legal."
I mean before the fact. I've seen several folks on Facebook (surrounding the Starbucks situation) who commented that they intended to call police if they saw a person carrying a gun.
And yes, the excuse from law enforcement that they have to investigate every report is hogwash. If someone called saying they saw a man with a chainsaw, or a car, or wearing a turtleneck, the police wouldn't "have to investigate."