Big Brother

from the linked report "Young grabbed the boy's 14-year-old friend and punched him in the mouth, knocking out a tooth, Jones said".

Had he succeeded in beating them all to the point where they would have retreated or posed no threat,guess who would be doing time?

I can't critisize his initial reaction/action though.I might have done the same.I'll resist the temptation to describe the end result had I been involved...

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartIt makes perfect sense...average streets/corners are abundant and plentiful.You spend more time on them.You have less a chance to fall off walking 5 feet of really thin rope than 5 miles of really thick(please don't over anylyze that analogy).

I understand what your analogy means, but you are wrong. Your average streets do not have NEARLY as much crime as those that are high in crime, thus, reducing crime on those streets would reduce OVERALL crime. Reducing OVERALL crime means a crime reduction for the entire city, making a city more secure as a whole. Also, the article was about the expansion of camera usage, and their BEING on your average street corner.

eh..I never said criminal activity isn't reduced.Heres what I said:quote "No,your not safer with those cameras...you'll still get mugged and the guy will probly get away..even if he gets caught,its no thanks to the cameras."How will the camera save you?Your 'chance' of being attacked is lowerd,but it won't stop an attack hence "your not safer".And again the 'chance' of the criminal being caught/identified will increase,but the camera dosn't deserve a pat on the lens.

So, the odds that you're attacked is lowered. Again, the chance of the criminal being caught is increased, thus lowering incentive. However, the camera will not make you safer? Statistically it clearly does. Cameras cannot stop bullets in midair, but neither can hospitals, and no one says hospitals can't prevent you from dying due to a gunshot wound.

Life isn't a "world's most shocking video's" show where every crook is identified and caught by surveillance cameras and everything ends well.Mabey this was misunderstood some posts ago?

Did I say every criminal would be caught? All I said was that more cameras would catch/deter more criminals, it's pretty obvious.

There is no argument that they reduce crime rates.

Excepting the statistic proof, of course. Also, let's look at what you have to say:
"eh..I never said criminal activity isn't reduced."
"Your 'chance' of being attacked is lowerd"
"And again the 'chance' of the criminal being caught/identified will increase"

The SUBJECT(which seems to change in threads if you notice)will never come to pass(that being your average street/corner nook and cranny being monitored).Why?Because they are 'average'.

It will never come to pass?

"Chicago is working on plans to link more than 2,000 public surveillance cameras in a network that would use sophisticated software to alert authorities to potential crimes.

"New Orleans is installing a sophisticated crime-fighting system of bulletproof cameras, each capable of eyeing an eight-block area. So far, about 240 of the proposed 1,000 cameras are in operation."

That's a pretty large number of cameras for NONE of them to be on an "average" street corner. Don't be thick, they're clearly putting these in less criminally active areas than the criminal "hotspots."

hmmm..in what case would someone do that :confused: (mabey extremely drunk..?)

I was being fascicious.

Your point is:Why would cameras reduce awareness?Because they promote a false sense of security.

Prove that point to me. Just because a camera is on a post doesn't mean anyone will lower their guard. I know I would not. Prove that I would.

I personally,will not rely on a 'reduced chance' of being attacked and be unaware of my surroundings,possible threats e.c.t."Oh my GAWD,i'm shocked that something like that could happen.I don't believe it!There was a camera there!" :eek:

So you wouldn't, and I wouldn't. I also doubt Raskolnikov would. PonyOne doesn't seem to be willing to lower his guard. That's four people who won't be unaware of their surroundings when walking around outside. I guess you've disproven your own point by refusing to cite examples. There's a difference between "feeling safer" and "letting your guard down."

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartfrom the linked report "Young grabbed the boy's 14-year-old friend and punched him in the mouth, knocking out a tooth, Jones said".

Had he succeeded in beating them all to the point where they would have retreated or posed no threat,guess who would be doing time?

No one. He could claim self defense after the other boys attacked him.
He might get a fine for punching the one kid initially, but he wouldn't be doing hard time.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollyson
He might get a fine for punching the one kid initially, but he wouldn't be doing hard time.

thats the thing.Had he mopped the floor with them,potentially killing one of them,he would be doing time.Unfortunately attacking minors is frowned upon no matter the situation.

(The system)"so Mr.Young,one boy is dead and the rest badly injured...whats your defense?"...(Mr.Young)"They assaulted me with an egg"...Later!

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartthats the thing.Had he mopped the floor with them,potentially killing one of them,he would be doing time.Unfortunately attacking minors is frowned upon no matter the situation.

(The system)"so Mr.Young,one boy is dead and the rest badly injured...whats your defense?"...(Mr.Young)"They assaulted me with an egg"...Later!

Had he mopped the floor with them and had a good lawyer, he could prove that the punch in the mouth was uncalled-for retribution but was not going to be followed up by any further violence. Also, not all of this group were minors.

Also, only the boy he hit was involved with throwing the egg, once the other kid hit Young in the head with the baby stroller, it was a different ballgame.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollyson...Your average streets do not have NEARLY as much crime as those that are high in crime, thus, reducing crime on those streets would reduce OVERALL crime.

yes,on paper it looks nice overall.A camera has no impact on a neigborhood 5 miles away.(affirmed by ponyones description of hardened security in specific places and crime going elsewhere)

Reducing OVERALL crime means a crime reduction for the entire city, making a city more secure as a whole. Also, the article was about the expansion of camera usage, and their BEING on your average street corner.

Yes,once again,secure on paper.The article said no such thing(about cameras on low crime rate streets and corners...)Also if you read the article "Cameras are not routinely monitored, and video is stored for a brief period, to be watched only if a crime is reported."...

So, the odds that you're attacked is lowered. Again, the chance of the criminal being caught is increased, thus lowering incentive. However, the camera will not make you safer? Statistically it clearly does. Cameras cannot stop bullets in midair, but neither can hospitals, and no one says hospitals can't prevent you from dying due to a gunshot wound.

Yes,lowered...on those streets that are monitored.I have nothing to say about the added prevention cameras can bring,but the camera will do nothing to save you in a attack.YOU will still need to fend for yourself and either eliminate the theat or run to saftey.

Did I say every criminal would be caught? All I said was that more cameras would catch/deter more criminals, it's pretty obvious.

And all I was saying is that they are not the 'super savers' that some make them out to be(not that you do).

It will never come to pass?

"Chicago is working on plans to link more than 2,000 public surveillance cameras in a network that would use sophisticated software to alert authorities to potential crimes.

"New Orleans is installing a sophisticated crime-fighting system of bulletproof cameras, each capable of eyeing an eight-block area. So far, about 240 of the proposed 1,000 cameras are in operation."

That's a pretty large number of cameras for NONE of them to be on an "average" street corner. Don't be thick, they're clearly putting these in less criminally active areas than the criminal "hotspots."

How many blocks in chicago or new orleans?...they are NOT putting them on the average streets(those with statistically low crime rates)and why would they?They are average and that is not the goal of law enforcment or the state/federal budget.Only 240 of the cameras in new orleans are operating and all 'hot spots' no doubt.

I was being fascicious.

you were?No kidding...

Prove that point to me. Just because a camera is on a post doesn't mean anyone will lower their guard. I know I would not. Prove that I would.


So you wouldn't, and I wouldn't. I also doubt Raskolnikov would. PonyOne doesn't seem to be willing to lower his guard. That's four people who won't be unaware of their surroundings when walking around outside. I guess you've disproven your own point by refusing to cite examples. There's a difference between "feeling safer" and "letting your guard down."

http://www.kstatecollegian.com/issues/v101/fa/n028/cam.securitycam.corey.html

also "Many CCTV situations promote a false sense of security. A good example is the use of "dummy" or false cameras. This may lead an individual to believe the area is being monitored and any criminal activity will generate an immediate response. Signage might also lead to a false sense of security. Signs which convey a message the cameras are utilized for the "safety and security" of patrons can lead to potential liability problems if the public believes cameras are monitored at all times and help is on the way if they become victimized. Use of "dummy" cameras, or not monitoring real cameras due to staff shortages or restrictions can create liability. It is important to determine the exact purpose of the camera and monitoring procedures. Share that information with those who may be impacted by it, generally the employees."form http://www.opkansas.org/_Bus/Business_Safety/cctv.cfm

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonHad he mopped the floor with them and had a good lawyer, he could prove that the punch in the mouth was uncalled-for retribution but was not going to be followed up by any further violence. Also, not all of this group were minors.

Also, only the boy he hit was involved with throwing the egg, once the other kid hit Young in the head with the baby stroller, it was a different ballgame.

He still would have got time for the assault.A cop witnessing that would have arrested him on the spot and mabey give the kids a scare like making them sit in the cruiser.Others wern't involved until he punched the kid,so he did initiate the mass attack that killed him.

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartLike I said,it looks great on paper/statistics,but the criminal activity is still only reduced in those areas that are monitored[/quote]
An overwhelming majority of crime happens in a very few small areas -- impacting only those areas makes a HUGE differnece; but when does improvements in crime fighting/deterence only effect one area?

Crime in the United States as a whole has been dropping for the last 20 years. The US has been less violent than the UK since 1996. It has to do with a lot of factors (harder sentences, higher conviction rates, concealed carry laws, etc...), but what helps, helps.

The only thing that is increasing here is our perception of violence.

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartand those numbers are ridiculous(yes,your just making a point I know).[/quote]
Really?

Between 1994 and 1999, the murder rate fell 63 percent, assaults dropped 60 percent, and armed robberies were down 49 percent.

The above is in direct refference to the city of New Orleans. All but one of the numbers used are greater than what I was using as rough examples.

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartNever been to batten rouge...is it a ghost town?[/quote]
"Ghost Town" is what the locals call one of the especially dangerous neighborhoods. A friend of mine was actually mugged on one of the fringes recently.

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartWhat are the crime rates for places considerd to be "boon docks"?Would you feel safer walking at 2:00 A.M in "Upton" Massachusetts(where a fender bender is the talk of the town) or 8:00 P.M in Boston within lights and crowds?[/quote]
I don't waste my time and energy worrying about what might or might not happen to me.



[QUOTE=chucklivesoninmyheart]My point is,people shouldn't find a false sense of absolute security just because a camera is in place.It can and does help deter the probability of an encounter...

Then why be so dismissive?



[QUOTE=chucklivesoninmyheart]but is no replacement for good judgment and awarness...

What ever is?



[QUOTE=PonyOne]the street corner i live on was one of the most violent areas in Los Angeles County from the late 70's to the early 90's. it was also the corner that you went to to score whatever illicit substance or service you wanted.

the cops stepped up patrol, and eventually the crime went away. now, the street corner is safe. however, if i ever need a hooker, if i head three blocks east then i'm set. if i ever need weed, then the street one block south of me, from one block east to Lincoln Boulevard which is about 5 blocks east, is the place to score in the West side.

All of that is "vice" crime.



[QUOTE=PonyOne]where. to truly prevent crime takes a lot more than putting in cameras and increasing beat cops; it requires better social services and better education.

Those numbers I quoted for New Orleans -- they all stem mostly from restructuring the police department.

Obviously, the ultimate solution is better education and better oportunities for people, but the harder it is to be a criminal, the fewer people who will do it.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonYour average streets do not have NEARLY as much crime as those that are high in crime, thus, reducing crime on those streets would reduce OVERALL crime. Reducing OVERALL crime means a crime reduction for the entire city, making a city more secure as a whole.

ok, I agree with you jolly except for this statement... statistically, the crime rate for the whole city drops, but in actuality, only the crime for the one street corner drops... example, let's say that there is a street corner that accounts for 10% of an entire city's crime, well, they put a camera on that street corner, and the crime on that corner drops to 2%, so, on paper, it looks as though the crime rater dropped 8% in the entire city, but really it just dropped 80% for that one street corner alone... this is really the only place I disagree with you, other then that, I agree totally

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrsok, I agree with you jolly except for this statement... statistically, the crime rate for the whole city drops, but in actuality, only the crime for the one street corner drops... example, let's say that there is a street corner that accounts for 10% of an entire city's crime, well, they put a camera on that street corner, and the crime on that corner drops to 2%, so, on paper, it looks as though the crime rater dropped 8% in the entire city, but really it just dropped 80% for that one street corner alone... this is really the only place I disagree with you, other then that, I agree totally

The people on that corner don't deserve a lower crime rate?

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonThe people on that corner don't deserve a lower crime rate?

no, I didn't say that they didn't, but like somebody said earlier(I'm too lazy to go back to figure out who) the crime just moves, so if you are making one street corner safer, all you are actually doing is making the surrounding street corners less safe. but what I was saying is, that you are only dropping the crime for one street corner, not the whole city unless you put cameras on EVERY street corner

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrsbut what I was saying is, that you are only dropping the crime for one street corner, not the whole city unless you put cameras on EVERY street corner

Which is why I support expanding the use of cameras.

[FONT=Times New Roman]I think cameras in public areas are fine by me. I don't get why people are so paranoid over that. They must be doing something illegal if they're so afraid. I mean who cares if a camera watches you buy a snickers bar? Sadly some people would consider a camera watching them chew a snickers bar an "invasion of privacy."[/FONT]

Your employer has the right to install cameras in the bathroom at work. I'm sure most don't, but you never know? Hell I don't let my girlfriend I live with watch me wipe my ass!

Originally Posted by: R. ShackleferdYour employer has the right to install cameras in the bathroom at work. I'm sure most don't, but you never know? Hell I don't let my girlfriend I live with watch me wipe my ass!

that's... disturbing. I don't think I ever have... erm... gone number two... in a public restroom before, but now I never will

Some bathrooms at a mall in massa2sh*ts has these little clear dots on the toilets that act like sensors(as in,it flushed when you are done)...I always gave it the finger just in case(yeah,like that would show em')

You better watch out. It may pop out a gun and start shooting at you just for disrespecting the censor lol.

Nah,too small for that...mabey a laser pointer though?

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartNah,too small for that...mabey a laser pointer though?

It could do some serious retinal damage.

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartSome bathrooms at a mall in massa2sh*ts has these little clear dots on the toilets that act like sensors(as in,it flushed when you are done)...I always gave it the finger just in case(yeah,like that would show em')

yeah, they have those all over here in california... I don't flip them off, I figure that making them look at me peeing all over the sensor has got to be good enough...