One response after a home invasion, the right one?

In the past, couple had fallen victim to home invaders, violent criminals who attacked these folk in their own home, a place where they should be safe, should be ... not were.

They were not safe, they were attacked and robbed and they took action in hopes of preventing that from happening again. Hope misplaced, proven so by a lack of change.
Watch through this video and see how well their precautions worked.

They placed one or more cameras, then their house was invaded again. The camera's caught images of their attackers, hopefully allowing the police to arrest them, but they did not stop the intruders, did not prevent them from assaulting and injuring them. I hope for their sake that they realized that as they lay in their hospital beds.

A gate might have stopped their attackers, the sight of a gun may have turned them away, such precautions might have safeguarded them from harm. The camera only served as an aid for punishing the criminals after the fact. Had those invaders opted to kill them, they would be just as dead.

"Never again" is an intention and a promise that needs to be enforced. If you desire to never again be subjected to violence, then it falls onto you to be able to enforce that desire in an effective manner.

Cops raid civil rights activists without warrant

Not everybody takes kindly to the introduction of CCTV cameras in their neighbourhood. Some people excercised their civil rights and started a petition to get rid of them.

Philadelphia police officers took offence to this, and raided their residence without a warrant.

What crimes did they commit?

• We're trying to drum up charges against them, but unfortunately we'll probably have to let them go."

No warrant, no clear evidence of any criminal activity ... sounds like herassment to me! What exactly has been accomplished?

• "This leaves me homeless, without access to things I need. My whole life is disrupted," Moffat said yesterday.

So much for keepingcriminals off the streets huh?

Brittish CCTV in action.

Okay, so maybe it didn't cut down on crime, or underage drinking or random vandalism/assaults/gang activity.

BUT! They do allow you to get filmed for free!



Via gizmodo

Denvers Cameras, a million dollar failure.

Installing cameras to cut down on crime is a well tried venue, not always a successful one unfortunately.
In attempt to cut down on graffiti vandalism, the city of Denver spends roughly one million dollars a year to maintain a camera surveillance system.

No arrests have resulted.

Related: CCTV fails in the UK

Brittish CCTV "worthless"?

Apparently, CCTV cameras work pretty well when scaring off premeditated crime, such as car burglaries.
Warding of violent criminals, drunk vandals, and people infuriated because "you done did disrespect them" is not a CCTV forte.

"In terms of town centres, where a lot of the behaviour is violent behaviour, often fuelled by alcohol, people aren't thinking rationally. They get angry, the CCTV is the last thing they are thinking about."
"Even the presence of police officers doesn't deter the disorder on the street, so cameras are unlikely to deter them."

A grim reminder of the fact that even though CCTV systems may help catch criminals after the fact, they do not protect your life, they do not mend broken bones, they do not bring you back from the dead. A gang of teenage criminals was out vandalising a car. When the husband of the cars owner interviened, he was beaten down and kicked untill he went into a coma, he died.

The events were caught on camera, but the poor man still died, his wife and daughter are still heartbroken.

Surveillance isn't worthless in terms of crimefighting, but it does little if anything to keep you safe. Aren't most murders "spur of the moment" events? Isn't that why guns are so bad, because somebody who gets enraged might go and get a gun to kill you?

Cameras don't save lifes, self defence save lifes!
Cameras only make your murderer a celeberty.