17 ms·

This strikes me as laughably naive. I once had my residence burglarized. The police came hours after they were called and stayed long enough (10 minutes) to w

This strikes me as laughably naive. I once had my residence burglarized. The police came hours after they were called and stayed long enough (10 minutes) to write a report that took me weeks to get which essentially said "door kicked in, owner said these things gone." That was it: no attempts to follow up with my neighbor that had security cameras, no attempt to run fingerprints on the metal pipe that was found outside that was almost certainly used to break the window, nothing. If your surveillance drone doesn't get a crystal clear picture of the face of the person who broke into your house, absolutely no one is going to attempt to pull prints or tracks or DNA samples from what it captured. And even if it did get a crystal clear picture, you'll be lucky to get someone to look at it.

panopticon 6y ago
My Nest cam clearly caught the thief, but the police refused to take the video unless it was on DVD. It wasn't worth the effort (I don't even have a DVD burner anymore), but the police gave me a case number to satisfy my insurance claim. That's all there was to it; no other followup.
- xsmasher 6y ago
  > the police gave me a case number to satisfy my insurance claim This is the purpose of the visit - to verify that it was a real break-in and not someone scamming their insurance company. Catching the thief is nowhere on their priorities.
- schaefer 6y ago
  Okay, so the investigation stalled on you. There was no follow up... by you.
  - panopticon 6y ago
    I tried to be accommodating and suggested at least 5 different means of sharing the video with the police. I even offered to provide a description of the person I saw in the video, and they told me not to bother. I got the distinct impression that even if I did jump through hoops to provide a DVD that they wouldn't be seriously investigating the theft. The officer who took my statement basically said as much.
kebman 6y ago
With respect, that doesn't seem to be a problem with the video system, but with the police department. As with any professional, a gentle reminder to please do their fn job often helps (this is from personal experience spesifically with lazy police officers). ^^ If the case goes to court, you will have a much better case against the suspect. In fact as a lay judge I've presided over many criminal cases where I live, and every case with video evidence stands a much higher chance of convicting the suspect. As for the gentleman who didn't even bother to put the video on the required media; well, I guess the case wasn't that important to him after all.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  that doesn't seem to be a problem with the video system, but with the police department. Police in many places don't do all the things that they do on television anymore. In some cities, burglaries may not get a police response for days, if at all. Police departments all across the country have to juggle finances. Sometimes this means deciding what types of crimes get investigated, and which do not. When I lived in the capital of a medium-sized eastern city in the 90's, the mayor and police department had a very public back-and-forth with a big list of crimes, and placing a red line on that list deciding what the police will look at and what they wouldn't. For example, until last year, police in Las Vegas dropped car crashes from the list of things they would respond to. Unless someone was hurt or killed, they were deemed civil matters and people were supposed to take pictures and let their insurance companies figure it out.
  - kebman 6y ago
    > Police in many places don't do all the things that they do on television anymore. None of what you're claiming is an argument against using cameras, though. Including the insinuation and logical fallacy that the only experience I, a lay judge within the Norwegian justice system, have with police work is through television........ You won't believe how often camera surveillance footage comes up in court cases, and how often they are instrumental in deciding those very cases. That you have an underfunded police force has exactly nothing to do with camera surveillance. In fact, knowing that is actually a giant argument for getting more surveillance cameras(!), since it's such a big help in solving cases and convicting criminals. Add to this that I've travelled quite extensively, including in countries with severely underfunded police forces, such as in Bulgaria and Romania, or worse, Serbia. There I've seen up close how such underfunded police work. Yeah, surveillance footage; it's even more important in areas with underfunded police! So if you choose to not install cameras, that's up to you, pal. But don't complain to me when you're making sure that any burglary towards your house becomes unsolvable because you refused to install them...
reaperducer 6y ago
And even if it did get a crystal clear picture, you'll be lucky to get someone to look at it. Yep. In some jurisdictions, you file burglary reports over the phone. Police don't even come out. They've prioritized burglaries out.

panopticon 6y ago

My Nest cam clearly caught the thief, but the police refused to take the video unless it was on DVD. It wasn't worth the effort (I don't even have a DVD burner anymore), but the police gave me a case number to satisfy my insurance claim. That's all there was to it; no other followup.

xsmasher 6y ago
> the police gave me a case number to satisfy my insurance claim This is the purpose of the visit - to verify that it was a real break-in and not someone scamming their insurance company. Catching the thief is nowhere on their priorities.
schaefer 6y ago
Okay, so the investigation stalled on you. There was no follow up... by you.
- panopticon 6y ago
  I tried to be accommodating and suggested at least 5 different means of sharing the video with the police. I even offered to provide a description of the person I saw in the video, and they told me not to bother. I got the distinct impression that even if I did jump through hoops to provide a DVD that they wouldn't be seriously investigating the theft. The officer who took my statement basically said as much.

kebman 6y ago

With respect, that doesn't seem to be a problem with the video system, but with the police department. As with any professional, a gentle reminder to please do their fn job often helps (this is from personal experience spesifically with lazy police officers). ^^ If the case goes to court, you will have a much better case against the suspect. In fact as a lay judge I've presided over many criminal cases where I live, and every case with video evidence stands a much higher chance of convicting the suspect. As for the gentleman who didn't even bother to put the video on the required media; well, I guess the case wasn't that important to him after all.

reaperducer 6y ago
that doesn't seem to be a problem with the video system, but with the police department. Police in many places don't do all the things that they do on television anymore. In some cities, burglaries may not get a police response for days, if at all. Police departments all across the country have to juggle finances. Sometimes this means deciding what types of crimes get investigated, and which do not. When I lived in the capital of a medium-sized eastern city in the 90's, the mayor and police department had a very public back-and-forth with a big list of crimes, and placing a red line on that list deciding what the police will look at and what they wouldn't. For example, until last year, police in Las Vegas dropped car crashes from the list of things they would respond to. Unless someone was hurt or killed, they were deemed civil matters and people were supposed to take pictures and let their insurance companies figure it out.
- kebman 6y ago
  > Police in many places don't do all the things that they do on television anymore. None of what you're claiming is an argument against using cameras, though. Including the insinuation and logical fallacy that the only experience I, a lay judge within the Norwegian justice system, have with police work is through television........ You won't believe how often camera surveillance footage comes up in court cases, and how often they are instrumental in deciding those very cases. That you have an underfunded police force has exactly nothing to do with camera surveillance. In fact, knowing that is actually a giant argument for getting more surveillance cameras(!), since it's such a big help in solving cases and convicting criminals. Add to this that I've travelled quite extensively, including in countries with severely underfunded police forces, such as in Bulgaria and Romania, or worse, Serbia. There I've seen up close how such underfunded police work. Yeah, surveillance footage; it's even more important in areas with underfunded police! So if you choose to not install cameras, that's up to you, pal. But don't complain to me when you're making sure that any burglary towards your house becomes unsolvable because you refused to install them...

reaperducer 6y ago

And even if it did get a crystal clear picture, you'll be lucky to get someone to look at it. Yep. In some jurisdictions, you file burglary reports over the phone. Police don't even come out. They've prioritized burglaries out.