4 ms·

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

by 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...
owenmarshall 6y ago
It’s not “do your job”: it’s recognizing that in a large city certain types of crime aren’t significant enough for police intervention. Frankly, that’s fine by me: putting enough police in place to investigate every incident of property crime would be exceptionally wasteful and would drive up overpolicing of certain communities to a ridiculous and dangerous degree. All I really needed was that report for insurance, after all.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > putting enough police in place to investigate every incident of property crime would be exceptionally wasteful and would drive up overpolicing of certain communities to a ridiculous and dangerous degree. Making them prioritize burglaries or robberies without increasing their manpower might force them to reallocate resources from overpolicing certain communities to doing actual, useful work that makes everyone safer. Sounds like a win-win to me. But then again, I'm not an expert. Maybe the amount of labor allocated to investigating property crimes currently is appropriate and increasing that might take focus away from violent crimes.

by kebman 6y ago

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...

owenmarshall 6y ago

It’s not “do your job”: it’s recognizing that in a large city certain types of crime aren’t significant enough for police intervention. Frankly, that’s fine by me: putting enough police in place to investigate every incident of property crime would be exceptionally wasteful and would drive up overpolicing of certain communities to a ridiculous and dangerous degree. All I really needed was that report for insurance, after all.

triceratops 6y ago
> putting enough police in place to investigate every incident of property crime would be exceptionally wasteful and would drive up overpolicing of certain communities to a ridiculous and dangerous degree. Making them prioritize burglaries or robberies without increasing their manpower might force them to reallocate resources from overpolicing certain communities to doing actual, useful work that makes everyone safer. Sounds like a win-win to me. But then again, I'm not an expert. Maybe the amount of labor allocated to investigating property crimes currently is appropriate and increasing that might take focus away from violent crimes.