Slashdot Mirror
Using Wearable Tech To Track Gun Use
An anonymous reader writes: A debate has been raging recently over whether or not to equip police with body cameras so that instances of violence in the line of duty can be monitored. It's an important discussion to have, but we should also look at other technologies that could help provide hard data on gun incidents. A new paper was recently published in PLOS ONE about the use of wristband accelerometers to detect when the wearer has fired a gun. Study author and criminology professor Charles Loeffler said, "A gunshot is pretty distinctive. You're typically at rest because you're trying to aim, and in a split second, your hand, wrist, and arm experience an impulsive transfer of energy." Loeffler suggests a suite of sensors including GPS and the wristband accelerometer could be given to convicts as a requirement for their parole. Not only would this help with police response in case of recidivism, but it could provide additional deterrent to further crimes. It could also be helpful to police departments, both for accountability and for integration between the police and the courts.
Let's put accelerometer watches on cops to track when they fire shots. Then we can correlate that data (given a useful timecode) with the footage from the cameras that we also need to make them wear if we're going to ensure that they operate in the public interest. They've been telling us all along that if we have nothing to hide, we should not fear scrutiny. Well, them first.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I know the libs wet their panties about gun crime and only gun crime to the exclusion of all other crime, but why do we only treat gun owners like they are a threat? More people were killed with someone's bare hands than the "scary black rifles" that the Democrats can't stop howling about.
I want a tracking a registration list of all the little thugs who didn't do nuffin someone with a knife, or their fists too. Shouldn't we fear those criminals even more? They meant it more.
If ex-cons are suffering from recidivism you the public are doing it wrong.
Get to the gun range and get your grouping a little tighter and for God's sakes, even though they are more expensive these days, don't be stingy with those 100% effective anti-recidivism devices (aka bullets).
OK, then. "You see, officer, I've been thinking of studying Gaelic, and after just a few minutes of trying to figure out how to conjugate in future imperfect, I got so frustrated that I punched a wall." [takes out pocket guide to Gaelic] "I'm guessing that dead guy over there must have gotten into a fight with someone else about pluperfect usage or perhaps gerunds, and it just went bad. That's a shame."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I prefer the idea of cameras on cops. In the city I live in, I have witnessed many criminal acts by police, they have been caught in criminal acts AND I know others affected by their criminal acts. Make them wear them like an electronic bitch bracelet. When the next President( who will be the one who promises to castrate the NSA) decommissions the server farm storage they have with our records on, they can be used to store police footage in perpetuity. Then maybe the NSA could be redirected to making sure we are secure against law enforcement. You know, something useful for a change.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
A cop firing a gun is morally ambiguous. Sometimes its justified, sometimes it isn't.
Deciding when it is vs. isn't justified is the problem. Knowing that the gun was fired is usually pretty obvious.
Knowing the entirety of the situation when a cop fired is considerably more important than if the cop actually fired.
Pervasive, tamper proof cameras on officers and their vehicles, that police cannot withhold from the public without a pretty serious conversation with a judge. That's the starting point.
Let's see what problems remain after we've had that running for 5 years.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.