Cameras in public places aren't always bad...

We all like to complain about cameras that are springing up everywhere, myself included, however sometimes these camera actually do some good and put animals where they belong, or the next best place to where they belong.

This first video is of a gang member in Chicago who boarded a bus carrying school-children because he thought a rival gang member was onboard. This heathen actually jumps on the bus and fires indiscriminately, with absolutely no respect for human life, killing an innocent child who was the son of a police officer. Luckily, this video was clear enough to put this animal behind bars.



This second incident is actually similar, though it takes place in Toronto. This one animal tries to get his target off the bus to take care of him in another location, even using the help- of his animal friends. When he can't get the guy off the bus, he too fires indiscriminately into the bus full of innocent people. The bullet winds up imbedding itself in the winter jacket of an innocent bystander. Without this video, the shooter would have never been convicted.



So, while we all (or most of us anyway) like to complain about the multitude of cameras, there are animals out there to where these cameras actually play their part in cleansing society from their presence.

I'm not so sure that the cost out-weighs the benefit of some of these cameras but at least there is a silver lining to their existence. Whether you agree with the public cameras or not, you have to at least be happy that they played their part in putting these thugs away.

Hey, at least it's not all for nothing.

--airspoon

I agree with camera's being around but there has to be a limit and cant be everywhere with limited power so they cant be use to abuse the public by whoever controls them.

Its just sick what the first guy in the first video did and glad it was caught on tape. Gang members aren't the same as back then, they had morals and rules to protect their communities from other wrong do'ers and wont ever do such thing like that without checking out the scene first to make sure the person they after is there without many people around to cut down witness and killing innocents/non-members. Nowadays, they all reckless and cowardly without thinking.

May he get abuse in prison, he deserves it

Justice will prevail on this one

then why do they feel so wrong?!?


lol

in all seriousness though, i have no doubt you can find hundreds of instances where a surveillance camera served the public in some valuable way, like in this instance, solved a crime that otherwise would have likely been unsolvable...

however, this is where the argument for freedom/privacy vs. safety comes into play.

i don't know, in this/these instance(s) of course it would be cruel to state that cameras are still offensive to the civil liberties of the people, but all-in-all, that still how i feel. :/

When was crime not around, before cameras or after? these types of crimes and the witnesses is what has come into play.

Before everyone was "watched" crimes were committed the government had a "solution" to find the real criminals, and they had no case. Now we have to have our faces, in a camera to prove a crime.

These are the tools that NSA will show on national t.v, to get people to side with them. There have been thousands upon thousands of crimes that have been committed and NO ONE went to jail.

And not because there wasn't enough evidence, but because jurors wouldn't/couldn't convict. We cant keep asking others to show us how to be civil. We cant expect that with more cameras there will be less crime. Obviously thats not true.

We the people are overshadowed by the so-called saviors, and we cant even protect ourselves in our homes, workplace, or our streets. How many cameras have to be readily available for the "just in case scenario" before we realize that if the judicial system didn't allow half of these people free, based on whose argument in court was more convincing the this wouldn't even happen.

With one system in chaos, how can we truly protect the people?

Peace to you...

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


I wasn't trying to suggest that more cameras equal less crime, only that these thugs got what they deserved, thanks to the cameras. Furthermore, I was trying to leave the debate on whether cameras are good or not, out of it by only suggesting this to be a silver lining of the camera issue.

--airspoon

airspoon i will agree with you on this one,
but the one's that tower above us all looking down
menicingly watching our every move must die.die i tell you!
rant rant etc etc....

Without that video the shooter never would been convicted?

With a bus full of witnesses?

Even in drug-war torn regions of South America people who lay into vehicles with guns are still identified despite the lack of cameras.

Before cameras here criminals still got caught. To my memory it seems like they used to get caught more often than they do now. And back then it was all masks and revolvers. Now the morons want to be seen and run around clear face shouting their names and their respective affiliations as they commit their crimes.

I cant believe a camera was the only way to get this guy and without it he would have walked off free.

I wouldn't even mind having cameras on every corner and in every other public place if the "authorities" didn't choose to enforce so many bull# "laws" along with them.

Criminals become criminals at some point in their lives, and it happens for a reason...

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Well, in a lot of bad areas, people are hesitant to "snitch", especially these days when even law-abiding teens look down on so-called snitches. In this day in age, a snitch is equal to a child molestor, according to the kids. Apparently, the video camera was the snitch in these cases.

Furthermore, whatkind of description are you going to use? Black male with a white shirt? All to often these thugs hide behind the anonymity of their gangs. Then, if nothing else, it made these dirt-bags that much easier to convict, ultimately saving tax-dollars on a prosecution.

--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


locking everyone up for 23 hours a day and only allowing people to move around outside with a police escort for the other hour would also cut crime...or how about putting a chip in everyone so whatever they do they can be tracked..that would also cut crime...

i doubt however anyone would want to live in such a system..

life is dangerous...the only 100% safe place on earth is the perfect prison..

This shocked me when i saw this:

www.youtube.com...

Check out that camera on a pole, that is seriously big brother.

Originally posted by alienesque

life is dangerous...the only 100% safe place on earth is the perfect prison..

Which funny enough cannot exist.

Drugs and weapons still make their way into prisons.

Who's going to ensure that our 1 hour per day police escort wont suddenly turn and attack or lead us into some gang raping beatdown that he worked out with other escorts and their assigned 'protected.'

There is no such thing as safety. We all need to accept that. Then we can take measures to protect ourselves from the evils of the world which may in turn actually make us safer than we are now. So many victims are only victims because they live clueless lives walking around in some denial filled daze with their ear buds blaring and seeing congregating thugs on the corner as 'culture.'

reply to post by airspoon


I was always against CCTV until i was attacked by 4 neo facists on my way home from the pub they had been ejected from in East London.

The camera operator saw a street brawl and called the police who arrived nearly straight away.
By that stage though, two attackers were unconscious, one was immobile and the other had run away. As i was standing uninjured and splashed with blood, the police arrested me and i was charged with G.B.H x 3.
I Claimed self defence, was on bail for a year went through magistrates court and on to crown court. I lost a contract job and was not allowed to leave london.
The CPS (crown prosecution service) and police first used forensic evidence to try to find me guilty, and only submitted the cctv evidence after a full week of this.
The video clearly showed me approaching a mini-cab office and getting attacked from behind. I reacted correctly, i still think that, my life was in danger, they meant me serious harm.
The police wanted me to say i had attacked the attackers first. even though they knew i hadn't.
As the video clearly supported my story, the judge directed the jury to find me not guilty and admonished the police for wasting time money and resources.

The CPS immediately sued for Violent affray. My judge friend was having none of it though.

I was found not guilty and had all my clothes returned to me.
THEY DID NOT GIVE ME BACK OR DESTROY THE DNA SAMPLE AT THE TIME OF ARREST.
Even though I have no criminal record and have not been in a fight since school, if you don't count the Dojo or boxing ring.

About one year after the court case, this time at stratford bus station in east london, i was attacked by a very drunk mugger.
He was very persistent even though there was hundreds of people around, i had to keep ducking and diving his big haymaker swings.
No one stepped in to help and i didn't want to spend another year on bail and all the stress that that cost me and my family for defending myself.

The thing is.......in stratford bus station there is a tannoy anouncement every 3 minutes.

"Stratford Bus station is covered by CCTV for you safety and security"

This bloke was walking circles around the station then throwing punches at me every time he went past. i kept thinking security will turn up soon, but no my bus did instead!

Why did no-one come and stop this from happening?

And why did the police/cps try to find me guilty by withholding cctv when they could have just shown it and let me go?

To cut to the chase CCTV saved my life from ruin (21 years in jail if guilty) but i left london soon after the second time, i did not feel safe.
CCTV is only used to prosecute after the offence has taken place, it's not there for our security, it's for the security of the powers that be and to raise revenue.

Originally posted by alienesque
reply to post by airspoon

 

locking everyone up for 23 hours a day and only allowing people to move around outside with a police escort for the other hour would also cut crime...or how about putting a chip in everyone so whatever they do they can be tracked..that would also cut crime...

i doubt however anyone would want to live in such a system..

life is dangerous...the only 100% safe place on earth is the perfect prison..

Hey, you've stole my analogy, as I always say the same the thing. Relax and reread the OP.

--airspoon

reply to post by discolo


Thank you for sharing your story, as it was quite interesting. Also, I feel for you, what you had to go through but you aren't alone by any strectch of the imagination. I know someone who had to use a firearm to protect his family, to include his children and they sent him through the ringer, basically ruining his life. For the sake of my anonymity, I'll refrain from stating my relationship to this person. I'm a firm believer that we should be able to protect ourselves and meet force with force. We sure can't rely on the authorities to save our butts when or if we need it.

Anyway, the OP really wasn't trying to argue the point one way or the other. In fact, I'm a big believer in Ben Franklin's quote:
"Whoever shall trade a little liberty for a little security, deserves neither and will lose both".

Sometimes you have to sacrifice your safety in order to reap the benefits of your liberty. Without liberty, what's the purpose in being secure in the first place? "Give me liberty or give me death" --Patrick Henry

Rather, the OP was merely pointing out at least a silver lining in this taped world. I myself don't agree with the cameras popping up everywhere and here in America, they do it a little different then there in the UK. Irregardless of what I or you believe about the cameras, it sure is nice to see that they helped put away these two fellas pictured up top.

--airspoon

I think todays society has created infrastructures that frustrate people, and in turn new rules or must be imposed to maintain control. No one needed to pay thousands of dollars a year on car payments or insurance when cars were unpopular- but when they became one of the main factors in keeping society running all sorts of accidents and tragedies were happening related to them, so them imposed all sorts of laws and insurance requirements- all of which are totally unnecessary and non-existent in any society lacking in a gigantic automobile industry. We have cameras and the patriot act to catch certain kinds of law breaksers now a days, but society helped create these environments for such things like SSN identity theft, or nuclear arms dealing, or black hat hackers to exist. The more society 'progresses' the more the technology, the more crimes grow and the more laws and surveillance needs to be taken place to counter act them.