Body Cameras: Who Uses One as a Civilian?

[cbhausen]

For the hell of it I ordered one of these from Amazon for $140:

DrivePro Body 10-Body Camera Capture Clear Images Anytime, Anywhere 1080P Full HD, 30fps, body camera, built-in battery, F/2.8 Aperture, 160° wide angle lens, IPX4 water resistant, shock resistant, infrared LED, IR, night vision, snapshot, 360° rotat

Seems to fill a niche between fragile, non ruggedized MUVI, etc. and full-on police body cams costing much more. Thought it might be useful if for nothing more than during rallies, demonstrations, etc. and hopefully not needed in a SHTF situation.

 

[cbhausen]

Bumping my own thread to update... I got this a day early from Amazon and have spent about a half hour fiddling around with it. Captured some video driving, getting in and out of the car, entering the house, walking around interacting with the dogs, typical everyday stuff... There's plenty of reviews on youtube, etc. so I'll just give a few early observations.

In short, this thing is cool as hell. The video is very crisp and clear with a wide field of view (160 degrees) which does produce a mild fish-eye effect. The white balance and colors aren't studio quality and there is a brief adjustment period for the react when going from light to dark areas or vice-versa (and also when the IR LEDs take over in near to full darkness). This lag is very brief, probably half a second or so. The video is tagged with date and time information as well as a line of text the user can edit using the companion PC utility. This thing is built really solid and reminds me of a professional quality 2-way radio in the hand. It's shock and water resistant and comes with a premium quality 32 GB microSD card. It's simple to use (only two buttons on it). There's a big, sturdy rotating clip to attach it to clothing or gear. The clip is non-removable and the unit resembles one of those ancient belt-worn pagers (remember them?).

Annoyingly, it breaks the video into 3-minute chunks, each being a separate file. This camera would not seem to make sense for large departments because there is no provision for docking or charging/syncing multiple units. Video capture/end capture also requires press-and-hold of the large start-stop button, probably about one to two seconds. I'd prefer a tap like the smaller snapshot button requires (you can even take snapshots during video recording). There's s super-bright recording indicator LED on the front which flashes slowly when recording; I wish it had a "stealth" mode to disable it.

All in all, a sound purchase for $140 which could be worth its 4 oz weight in gold during an interaction gone wrong and a hell of a lot safer than having to reach in your pocket for a cell phone camera.

 

[flintlock9]

I think thats a great idea for any that interacts with people daily. A picture is worth a 1000 words but video is so much better.

 

[phylodog]

My advice to you is this...Should you be involved in a situation that is (partially) captured on that camera and could land you in court (criminal or civil), do not provide the video to anyone until you've spoken with an attorney. There are a lot of issues with body cameras which can create significant problems for you.

 

[Trigger Time]

My advice to you is this...Should you be involved in a situation that is (partially) captured on that camera and could land you in court (criminal or civil), do not provide the video to anyone until you've spoken with an attorney. There are a lot of issues with body cameras which can create significant problems for you.

The lawyer advice is sound. Even for my home security footage of never share it with the police before my lawyer.
Would you mind elaborating on the issues you're aware of? Food for thought. Thanks for sharing

 

[phylodog]

Would you mind elaborating on the issues you're aware of? Food for thought. Thanks for sharing

The biggest issue is that once video footage is entered into evidence, anything and everything else takes a distant second place.

Cameras see/record much differently than our eyes do. They don't have a binocular view so there is little to no depth perception, the fish eye lenses of some cameras really distort distances. Cameras do not experience looming, they do not judge speed and they do not experience stress induced tunnel vision.

These cameras cannot track a moving target like our eyes can. Our eyes move with a moving target which allows us to maintain sharp focus on a specific object in motion. Cameras don't have this ability and a still or slow moving camera will show a quickly moving target as blurry. We can also focus our vision while we are moving at high speed, cameras cannot. In this instance our eyes are better than cameras.

As humans, we have a very small area of fine focus. Most video cameras have a very broad area which is in focus. What this means is there is a huge difference between what the camera footage will show in clear focus and what the person wearing it was focused on. Just because the camera and the wearer were facing the same direction, it does not mean the person wearing it was focused on the particular item of interest. We only have around 2° of fine visual acuity (sharp focus). Once you get out beyond 20° from this we can pick some things up but our "vision" meets the standard for legal blindness. The camera focuses on everything at once (160° in this instance).

The OP mentioned IR capabilities. His eyes don't have that benefit. What happens when the camera sees/records something that he was unable to see (home intruder dropping their weapon)? Is a jury going to believe his words or what they saw on the video?

We don't get the benefit of replaying what we see over and over to make a judgement or a decision. Every time a jury member gets to watch a video they get to gather more and more information. Much of that information isn't available to the person wearing the camera at that moment.

We have the ability to see a lot of things around us by turning our heads, a body mounted camera will not pick up what we see when this occurs.

Those are some of the issues off the top of my head. I'm not saying cameras are a bad thing but they should be used with caution and as a private citizen wearing one, the footage should not be released with the approval of a good attorney. It is my opinion that video footage introduced during civil or criminal trials should be prefaced with a thorough explanation of the differences between what we see and what cameras see but that's a pipe dream.

 

[17 squirrel]

The biggest issue is that once video footage is entered into evidence, anything and everything else takes a distant second place.

Cameras see/record much differently than our eyes do. They don't have a binocular view so there is little to no depth perception, the fish eye lenses of some cameras really distort distances. Cameras do not experience looming, they do not judge speed and they do not experience stress induced tunnel vision.

These cameras cannot track a moving target like our eyes can. Our eyes move with a moving target which allows us to maintain sharp focus on a specific object in motion. Cameras don't have this ability and a still or slow moving camera will show a quickly moving target as blurry. We can also focus our vision while we are moving at high speed, cameras cannot. In this instance our eyes are better than cameras.

As humans, we have a very small area of fine focus. Most video cameras have a very broad area which is in focus. What this means is there is a huge difference between what the camera footage will show in clear focus and what the person wearing it was focused on. Just because the camera and the wearer were facing the same direction, it does not mean the person wearing it was focused on the particular item of interest. We only have around 2° of fine visual acuity (sharp focus). Once you get out beyond 20° from this we can pick some things up but our "vision" meets the standard for legal blindness. The camera focuses on everything at once (160° in this instance).

The OP mentioned IR capabilities. His eyes don't have that benefit. What happens when the camera sees/records something that he was unable to see (home intruder dropping their weapon)? Is a jury going to believe his words or what they saw on the video?

We don't get the benefit of replaying what we see over and over to make a judgement or a decision. Every time a jury member gets to watch a video they get to gather more and more information. Much of that information isn't available to the person wearing the camera at that moment.

We have the ability to see a lot of things around us by turning our heads, a body mounted camera will not pick up what we see when this occurs.

Those are some of the issues off the top of my head. I'm not saying cameras are a bad thing but they should be used with caution and as a private citizen wearing one, the footage should not be released with the approval of a good attorney. It is my opinion that video footage introduced during civil or criminal trials should be prefaced with a thorough explanation of the differences between what we see and what cameras see but that's a pipe dream.

Did you cut and paste that response ???

Lol just kidding, That Sir was one of my top 5 posts that I have read on this forum. It was easy to understand, chock full of information that gave the reader huge amounts to think about when viewing video from now on.
Great Post.. Thanks...... Incoming Rep...

 

[phylodog]

No cut and paste but I did attend a Force Science Institute certification course in Chicago last September. We discussed cameras and the issues they present quite a bit. It was very informative.

 

[ART338WM]

I think thats a great idea for any that interacts with people daily. A picture is worth a 1000 words but video is so much better.

Until it's you trying to explain to a jury why the camera footage only shows YOU committing an act of violence born of self defense, but failed some how to record the circumstances that lead up to said situation that can corroborate your "side of the story". Cameras are THE embodiment of a double edged sword. Video footage is one of the few pieces of evidence be it civil or criminal, that is subject to complete control as to how, when, where and how much of it was gathered in the first place.

 

[cbhausen]

Good stuff, thanks for the responses. Good advice on consulting an attorney first and applicable to anything related to a self-defense situation which places one in legal jeopardy.

 

[tbhausen]

phylodog, does this mean video reviews for sporting events are... bad?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Just as a heads up, if your recording device captures evidence of a significant crime you may not get a chance to consult with a lawyer. It may be seized and a warrant issued to extract the relevant footage. You may also want to familiarize yourself with Indiana's Obstruction of Justice law.

Let's also say you were involved in a self defense shooting. The novelty of a civilian with a body camera is likely going to get media attention. Do you want the level of attention that Zimmerman got? Slow news cycle could make that happen.

 

[Tanfodude]

Just as a heads up, if your recording device captures evidence of a significant crime you may not get a chance to consult with a lawyer. It may be seized and a warrant issued to extract the relevant footage. You may also want to familiarize yourself with Indiana's Obstruction of Justice law.

Let's also say you were involved in a self defense shooting. The novelty of a civilian with a body camera is likely going to get media attention. Do you want the level of attention that Zimmerman got? Slow news cycle could make that happen.

If it were me, then, they can just have the memory card as evidence. No need for warrant.

As far as media, just let it be as long as you are on the right side of the law and the evidence undeniably supports it.

 

[tbhausen]

If it were me, then, they can just have the memory card as evidence. No need for warrant.

As far as media, just let it be as long as you are on the right side of the law and the evidence undeniably supports it.

As phylodog explained, video can have big downsides, even for a good guy who's completely in the right. After absorbing this thread, I have a much clearer understanding why cops might be opposed to wearing them (and I certainly won't be because, unlike some of them, I have that choice).

 

[BehindBlueI's]

As far as media, just let it be as long as you are on the right side of the law and the evidence undeniably supports it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...oh, wait, you're serious. Even if the video 100% shows you're in the right, that won't stop the media from twisting it for their purposes. I was filmed restraining a guy by the chest who was fighting medics and the news said I was choking him DESPITE SHOWING THE VIDEO OF MY HAND CLEARLY ON HIS STERNUM as they are saying I was holding him by the neck. The media isn't much interested in the truth if it affects ratings.

 

[Vigilant]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...oh, wait, you're serious. Even if the video 100% shows you're in the right, that won't stop the media from twisting it for their purposes. I was filmed restraining a guy by the chest who was fighting medics and the news said I was choking him DESPITE SHOWING THE VIDEO OF MY HAND CLEARLY ON HIS STERNUM as they are saying I was holding him by the neck. The media isn't much interested in the truth if it affects ratings.

HAND, HAND? Clearly the only reason you got the media jam was because your "hands" weren't encased in Jack boots!

 

[cbhausen]

Does this mean I shouldn't get a dash cam either?

 

[NHT3]

VERY interesting and informative.. Cbhausen, How do you think it would work for shooting competitions or just use at the range to record what you are doing? Also, how long does the battery last?
Thanks

Glock certified armorer- M&P Certified armorer[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
NRA Basic pistol instructor[FONT=&quot] /[/FONT][FONT=&quot] RSO[/FONT]

 

[phylodog]

Does this mean I shouldn't get a dash cam either?

I never said you shouldn't get a body cam

For some reason I don't have the same apprehension about dash cameras that I do about body cameras. Perhaps its that since it is mounted to the vehicle and basically stationary, people don't have the expectation that it will capture everything. I've actually considered one for my truck after seeing so many videos of crashes on Youtube.

 

[cbhausen]

VERY interesting and informative.. Cbhausen, How do you think it would work for shooting competitions or just use at the range to record what you are doing? Also, how long does the battery last?
Thanks

Glock certified armorer- M&P Certified armorer
NRA Basic pistol instructor[FONT=&amp] /[/FONT][FONT=&amp] RSO[/FONT]

In my opinion a GoPro or similar with multiple mounting options would be a better choice for the usage scenarios you describe. Check out Jerry Miculek's YouTube channel, he does lots of POV recording using a GoPro, sometimes on his head and other times tripod mounted or on the firearm itself. The Transcend DrivePro Body 10 has a non-removable rotating clip only and without improvisation can only be mounted on the front of one's torso or belt. The battery life is rated at up to 3.5 hours without the built-in IR LEDs being active. The DrivePro Body 10 (and body cams in general) are evidence collection devices. You get what you get when you hit the record button and hope it can help later.