17 ms·

My ring camera caught a murderer breaking a door down last year and it's been a headache for me ever since. Even though I didnt actually see the murder,I've bee

by 5440 7y ago

My ring camera caught a murderer breaking a door down last year and it's been a headache for me ever since. Even though I didnt actually see the murder,I've been called to several depositions and had to take three unpaid weeks off of work because of trial stuff. It's so frustrating. All I say everytime, is "Yes, I own the camera" I regret ever buying it at this point.

paublyrne 7y ago
At the risk of being glib, your headache and frustrations seem trivial in the context of the crime you're mentioning.
- mikestew 7y ago
  At equal risk of being glib, I don't think the purchase of consumer electronics should put you on the hook for weeks of depositions for a crime you didn't personally witness. I believe that would the literal manifestation of "that's not what I signed up for". Here's the MP4 file, now go away.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    What if you were a random witness? You didn't sign up for that either. You have certain civic obligations which are enforced by law. I assume in these types of cases, you could be held in contempt if you wouldn't respond voluntarily. It's unfortunate for the person involved and the incentives in the system are such that no one is trying to make efficient use of their time. But that's pretty much the way it is. It's not really that different from being seated on a multi-week jury trial much less a possibly multi-month grand jury.
    - ixtli 7y ago
      Maybe we shouldn't construct a society where your obligations to your employer are at odds with you helping society find justice for a murder victim. This is a great example of how atomized our society has become.
      - ghaff 7y ago
        I'm honestly not sure what that means. Many large companies tend to be pretty flexible with respect to things like jury duty. But, to say that even a small business needs to keep paying full salary for someone who is out for weeks or longer (and even if they have to hire a temporary replacement) is probably not realistic. Per diems for things like jury duty should arguably be higher. But there's no world in which, say, a Silicon Valley software developer is going to be paid their regular daily salary with benefits. As I wrote elsewhere, it would be nice if everyone involved were more respectful of the time being put in by unpaid or nominally paid participants. But that's no one's priority.
        sdoering 7y ago
        In Germany the state pays your lost salary when you are required to be in court as a witness. We don't have the American jury system so times in court tend to be way shorter. But non the less. If society here needs my support it is giving back something as well. Not that in the one case were I was entitled to compensation I ever asked for it. Because I feel it was my civic duty. But then - I am in the lucky position to be able to afford this sentiment.
        anigbrowl 7y ago
        'atomization' describes a social phenomenon of mass strategic isolation, though one which requires additional reading rather than being easily definable here. Anyway, why shouldn't a business of any size continue to pay people? Just treat employee absences as a minor insurable risk, or press for adequate compensation for witnesses and jurors by restructuring the tax system. Passively accepting bad things guarantees you will get more of them.
        malandrew 7y ago
        What they should do is allow the business to deduct that employee's salary from the taxes they owe while that employee is fulfilling a public need.
        ixtli 7y ago
    - mikestew 7y ago
      What if you were a random witness? I'm not, I'm a random person in possession of a consumer electronics device that might have a video recording of the crime in question. No need for depositions, everything I know is in this MP4 file, and now that I have transferred the file to you, LEO, you know everything I know. Further interrogation will gain you nothing but my contempt. It's not really that different from being seated on a multi-week jury trial much less a possibly multi-month grand jury. Forget ballparks, it's not even the same sport.
    - posterboy 7y ago
      The problem here is that the leave is unpaid. I've been informed recently that the employer in Germany has to compensate for the leave and will be reimbursed later. This sounds too good to be true though.
- ryanlol 7y ago
  At the risk of being glib, I don’t think much can be done about the crime at this point.
RandomBacon 7y ago
I imagine if you saw the person enter the house and not your camera, the results would be similar: depositions, time away from work, etc? The question is, in this particular case, did the camera help identify an otherwise unknown suspect?
- delfinom 7y ago
  That's not equivalent. In one case you need a human testifying because the memory of the events are stored in their brain that's inaccessible to any other form of retrieval besides giving a deposition. In the other case, the camera caught it on a digital format thats accessible by literally anyone living in the 21st century.
  - refurb 7y ago
    That's not how trials work. Someone has to testify that yes, they installed the camera on X date, yes, the date/time stamp is accurate, yes, it was working the last time they checked, yes, the video in question was recovered, yes, the video was transferred to the prosecutors office, no, the video was not modified to the best of my recollection. Saying "hey, I have this mp4 that proves the murder" doesn't work in court.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      Cloud storage provides de facto answers to most of those questions as far as the property owner is concerned.
      - ghaff 7y ago
        Possibly. The "issue" in this case is probably that the prosecutor wants to do everything in his power to maximize the probability of a successful prosecution based on the available evidence even if it means taking three weeks of someone's time rather than making do with a simple notarized statement. And the defense wants to do everything is his power to throw roadblocks in the way of the prosecution even if it means wasting three weeks of some third party's time. Nowhere are there any incentives to make things efficient for someone if doing so could hurt your case by even a little bit.
vgoh1 7y ago
Not sure what country you are in, but that's called civic duty, and helps society work.
- stephens_chris 7y ago
  In some societies, you are rewarded, or at least supported, in doing your civic duty. That's often not the case in other places. There can be a high cost.
- loteck 7y ago
  Why can't society compensate this person fairly for his help?
  - garmaine 7y ago
    It can. He should be able to invoice the DA for his time. The taxpayers (society) foots the bill.
    - threwawasy1228 7y ago
      As someone who just served Jury Duty in the USA. I can tell you the 'bill' for my services was barely minimum wage.
      - ghaff 7y ago
        Last time I got called for jury duty (but didn't get chosen), I forget what the per diem rate was but basically it wouldn't have covered parking (or at least not by much).
      - authoritarian 7y ago
        Fortunately it's incredibly easy to get eliminated during the selection process if you know how to answer the questions
        garmaine 7y ago
hanniabu 7y ago
I don't see why this is necessary. If it's on camera why would it matter who it belongs to? Is some legal letter not sufficient? Something along the lines of "I, name, live at this address and own the device that captured said footage". It's not like it was a witness account or anything.
- 5440 7y ago
  Exactly my point. The prosecutor told me its because the defense is trying to dispute everything and get the footage removed from evidence.
- Paul-ish 7y ago
  I wonder what a lawyer would say, but I suspect this has something to do with the right to cross examine evidence. It might be hearsay to just use a pre-recorded statement. If the defense thinks the evidence is bunk, they should be able to question 5440 about the camera. Cynically, this could also be a tactic using the right to cross examine to wear 5440 down. I'm not a lawyer though, so who knows.
  - derefr 7y ago
    Not a pre-recorded statement; a notarized declaration letter. “At some point I declared in person, to a reliable witness, that I own this camera, and they wrote that down.”
- refurb 7y ago
  How does the defense question the circumstances around the video if it's just a letter they sent in? Or should they just take the prosecutors word that the video is what they say it is?
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    It's a video, it can speak for itself
solotronics 7y ago
If it was a family member of yours that was murdered wouldn't you want someone to help catch the person who did it?
- wolco 7y ago
  Just to extend the discussion. What does a murdered family member entitle you to? Should all homes be able to be searched in America because someone was murdered and the crime not solved? Should all other rights disappear in the hunt for your family member. There has to be limits to the extremes.
  - notJim 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
authoritarian 7y ago
After providing the footage, if they tried to get me to take 3 unpaid weeks off work, I would tell them to kick rocks. If they want me to help them with their case at the expense of my job they need to compensate me for lost income.
- ghaff 7y ago
  In which case, you would probably be found in contempt of court and fined or arrested if a judge wanted to push the point.
  - authoritarian 7y ago
    Fine with me, they can compensate me for my time or contact my attorney. In reality, knowing how scummy the local criminal "justice" system is, I would never have reported or handed over the video anyway knowing they'd try to pull some nonsense like making me miss a month of work unpaid. When my mother was robbed she waited an hour in the rain and the police (Seattle PD) didn't even send a unit out to make a report. I'm not going out of my way to help when they won't do the same. I'm sure all the HN statists will downvote and tell me what an awful person I am for not supporting law enforcement, and what if it was my family member that was murdered, etc. but maybe if the police want help from their community they should actually support their community rather than just harassing homeless people, arresting non-violent drug offenders, and fining poor people
    - MaupitiBlue 7y ago
      I remember being 14.
diogenescynic 7y ago
That seems like an incredibly selfish reaction. You're mad that you had to provide testimony about a neighbor's murder? How would you feel if your neighbors were complaining about helping with your murder investigation? And I say this as someone who recently had jury duty and watched dozens of people make fools of themselves because they simply didn't want to participate in their civil duty. This is what makes/breaks a society.
antihero 7y ago
I mean at least you haven't been murdered.

by 5440 7y ago

paublyrne 7y ago

At the risk of being glib, your headache and frustrations seem trivial in the context of the crime you're mentioning.

mikestew 7y ago
At equal risk of being glib, I don't think the purchase of consumer electronics should put you on the hook for weeks of depositions for a crime you didn't personally witness. I believe that would the literal manifestation of "that's not what I signed up for". Here's the MP4 file, now go away.
- ghaff 7y ago
  What if you were a random witness? You didn't sign up for that either. You have certain civic obligations which are enforced by law. I assume in these types of cases, you could be held in contempt if you wouldn't respond voluntarily. It's unfortunate for the person involved and the incentives in the system are such that no one is trying to make efficient use of their time. But that's pretty much the way it is. It's not really that different from being seated on a multi-week jury trial much less a possibly multi-month grand jury.
  - ixtli 7y ago
    Maybe we shouldn't construct a society where your obligations to your employer are at odds with you helping society find justice for a murder victim. This is a great example of how atomized our society has become.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      I'm honestly not sure what that means. Many large companies tend to be pretty flexible with respect to things like jury duty. But, to say that even a small business needs to keep paying full salary for someone who is out for weeks or longer (and even if they have to hire a temporary replacement) is probably not realistic. Per diems for things like jury duty should arguably be higher. But there's no world in which, say, a Silicon Valley software developer is going to be paid their regular daily salary with benefits. As I wrote elsewhere, it would be nice if everyone involved were more respectful of the time being put in by unpaid or nominally paid participants. But that's no one's priority.
      - sdoering 7y ago
        In Germany the state pays your lost salary when you are required to be in court as a witness. We don't have the American jury system so times in court tend to be way shorter. But non the less. If society here needs my support it is giving back something as well. Not that in the one case were I was entitled to compensation I ever asked for it. Because I feel it was my civic duty. But then - I am in the lucky position to be able to afford this sentiment.
      - anigbrowl 7y ago
        'atomization' describes a social phenomenon of mass strategic isolation, though one which requires additional reading rather than being easily definable here. Anyway, why shouldn't a business of any size continue to pay people? Just treat employee absences as a minor insurable risk, or press for adequate compensation for witnesses and jurors by restructuring the tax system. Passively accepting bad things guarantees you will get more of them.
      - malandrew 7y ago
        What they should do is allow the business to deduct that employee's salary from the taxes they owe while that employee is fulfilling a public need.
        ixtli 7y ago
  - mikestew 7y ago
    What if you were a random witness? I'm not, I'm a random person in possession of a consumer electronics device that might have a video recording of the crime in question. No need for depositions, everything I know is in this MP4 file, and now that I have transferred the file to you, LEO, you know everything I know. Further interrogation will gain you nothing but my contempt. It's not really that different from being seated on a multi-week jury trial much less a possibly multi-month grand jury. Forget ballparks, it's not even the same sport.
  - posterboy 7y ago
    The problem here is that the leave is unpaid. I've been informed recently that the employer in Germany has to compensate for the leave and will be reimbursed later. This sounds too good to be true though.
ryanlol 7y ago
At the risk of being glib, I don’t think much can be done about the crime at this point.

RandomBacon 7y ago

I imagine if you saw the person enter the house and not your camera, the results would be similar: depositions, time away from work, etc? The question is, in this particular case, did the camera help identify an otherwise unknown suspect?

delfinom 7y ago
That's not equivalent. In one case you need a human testifying because the memory of the events are stored in their brain that's inaccessible to any other form of retrieval besides giving a deposition. In the other case, the camera caught it on a digital format thats accessible by literally anyone living in the 21st century.
- refurb 7y ago
  That's not how trials work. Someone has to testify that yes, they installed the camera on X date, yes, the date/time stamp is accurate, yes, it was working the last time they checked, yes, the video in question was recovered, yes, the video was transferred to the prosecutors office, no, the video was not modified to the best of my recollection. Saying "hey, I have this mp4 that proves the murder" doesn't work in court.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Cloud storage provides de facto answers to most of those questions as far as the property owner is concerned.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      Possibly. The "issue" in this case is probably that the prosecutor wants to do everything in his power to maximize the probability of a successful prosecution based on the available evidence even if it means taking three weeks of someone's time rather than making do with a simple notarized statement. And the defense wants to do everything is his power to throw roadblocks in the way of the prosecution even if it means wasting three weeks of some third party's time. Nowhere are there any incentives to make things efficient for someone if doing so could hurt your case by even a little bit.

vgoh1 7y ago

Not sure what country you are in, but that's called civic duty, and helps society work.

stephens_chris 7y ago
In some societies, you are rewarded, or at least supported, in doing your civic duty. That's often not the case in other places. There can be a high cost.
loteck 7y ago
Why can't society compensate this person fairly for his help?
- garmaine 7y ago
  It can. He should be able to invoice the DA for his time. The taxpayers (society) foots the bill.
  - threwawasy1228 7y ago
    As someone who just served Jury Duty in the USA. I can tell you the 'bill' for my services was barely minimum wage.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      Last time I got called for jury duty (but didn't get chosen), I forget what the per diem rate was but basically it wouldn't have covered parking (or at least not by much).
    - authoritarian 7y ago
      Fortunately it's incredibly easy to get eliminated during the selection process if you know how to answer the questions
      - garmaine 7y ago

hanniabu 7y ago

I don't see why this is necessary. If it's on camera why would it matter who it belongs to? Is some legal letter not sufficient? Something along the lines of "I, name, live at this address and own the device that captured said footage". It's not like it was a witness account or anything.

5440 7y ago
Exactly my point. The prosecutor told me its because the defense is trying to dispute everything and get the footage removed from evidence.
Paul-ish 7y ago
I wonder what a lawyer would say, but I suspect this has something to do with the right to cross examine evidence. It might be hearsay to just use a pre-recorded statement. If the defense thinks the evidence is bunk, they should be able to question 5440 about the camera. Cynically, this could also be a tactic using the right to cross examine to wear 5440 down. I'm not a lawyer though, so who knows.
- derefr 7y ago
  Not a pre-recorded statement; a notarized declaration letter. “At some point I declared in person, to a reliable witness, that I own this camera, and they wrote that down.”
refurb 7y ago
How does the defense question the circumstances around the video if it's just a letter they sent in? Or should they just take the prosecutors word that the video is what they say it is?
- hanniabu 7y ago
  It's a video, it can speak for itself

solotronics 7y ago

If it was a family member of yours that was murdered wouldn't you want someone to help catch the person who did it?

wolco 7y ago
Just to extend the discussion. What does a murdered family member entitle you to? Should all homes be able to be searched in America because someone was murdered and the crime not solved? Should all other rights disappear in the hunt for your family member. There has to be limits to the extremes.
- notJim 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

authoritarian 7y ago

After providing the footage, if they tried to get me to take 3 unpaid weeks off work, I would tell them to kick rocks. If they want me to help them with their case at the expense of my job they need to compensate me for lost income.

ghaff 7y ago
In which case, you would probably be found in contempt of court and fined or arrested if a judge wanted to push the point.
- authoritarian 7y ago
  Fine with me, they can compensate me for my time or contact my attorney. In reality, knowing how scummy the local criminal "justice" system is, I would never have reported or handed over the video anyway knowing they'd try to pull some nonsense like making me miss a month of work unpaid. When my mother was robbed she waited an hour in the rain and the police (Seattle PD) didn't even send a unit out to make a report. I'm not going out of my way to help when they won't do the same. I'm sure all the HN statists will downvote and tell me what an awful person I am for not supporting law enforcement, and what if it was my family member that was murdered, etc. but maybe if the police want help from their community they should actually support their community rather than just harassing homeless people, arresting non-violent drug offenders, and fining poor people
  - MaupitiBlue 7y ago
    I remember being 14.

diogenescynic 7y ago

That seems like an incredibly selfish reaction. You're mad that you had to provide testimony about a neighbor's murder? How would you feel if your neighbors were complaining about helping with your murder investigation? And I say this as someone who recently had jury duty and watched dozens of people make fools of themselves because they simply didn't want to participate in their civil duty. This is what makes/breaks a society.

antihero 7y ago

I mean at least you haven't been murdered.