Cicero - what a ridiculous argument. The two points are not mutually exclusive. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy and the residents want the cameras in their neighborhood. I mentioned the point about the constitutional issue because you are basically complaining about the cameras because of your personal opinion (hangup) re: the cameras. The cameras are not unconstitutional, the residents want them, yet - you don't want them, so they should be removed? Get over yourself and step away from the computer - this website is not the world, it's not reality.
RE: how they started - started as a grant because of the issues with open air drug dealing, shootings, and those types of issues. Started with 5 cameras and then grew based on some success there.
Henry - cameras are only one part of the solution - cameras have helped with the open air drug dealing and have been instrumental in solving crimes including several homicides. It's a force multiplier, it helps the police keep an eye on problem areas.
TIB 0- Foil the police budget - it has been shrinking over the past 8-9 years.
Not an honest sampling? That's part of the equation, listen to the community - called community policing. Should the police attend those meetings then ignore what the people say? I thought people on this site kept complaining because all the attention was paid to downtown. Now, when steps are taken to listen to community concerns - it's wrong. And, I certainly haven't read about a grass roots effort by community residents to remove the cameras.
visitor - The budget has not shrunk in the past 8 to 9 years. Take the entire cost with pay and benefits. I dont need to FOIL as the information is already on the state websites. Are you looking at some thing different?
I think the percentage going to Operations and the percentage going to benefits has changed and that is why you say it is shrinking. Am I wrong? Help me see the light.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid - John Wayne
TIP TO NEW VISITORS TO THIS FORUM - To improve your blogging pleasure it is recommended to ignore (Through editing your prefere) the posts of the following bloggers - DemocraticVoiceofReason, Scotsgod08 and Smoking Bananas. They continually go off topic, do not provide facts and make irrational remarks. If you do not believe me, this can be proven by their reputation scores or by a sampling of their posts.
Cicero - what a ridiculous argument. The two points are not mutually exclusive. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy and the residents want the cameras in their neighborhood. I mentioned the point about the constitutional issue because you are basically complaining about the cameras because of your personal opinion (hangup) re: the cameras. The cameras are not unconstitutional, the residents want them, yet - you don't want them, so they should be removed? Get over yourself and step away from the computer - this website is not the world, it's not reality.
Very clever! Frame your argument as if I am the only person that has a problem with police surveillance without warrants. You claim that neighborhood associations want these cameras, as if a few hundred people have the right to petition the government for city wide surveillance. Yeah, that's "democratic".
If you are a man of the law, then you know the 6th Amendment guarantees your right to face your accuser. It sounds as if the neighborhood associations are accusing 66k city residents of criminal behavior on public property. And EVERYBODY that walks on public property must be subjected to surveillance.
Only a law enforcement agent would think that is how a free society operates. If you want to be free of government surveillance, you must stay on your quarter acre piece of property.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid - John Wayne
TIP TO NEW VISITORS TO THIS FORUM - To improve your blogging pleasure it is recommended to ignore (Through editing your prefere) the posts of the following bloggers - DemocraticVoiceofReason, Scotsgod08 and Smoking Bananas. They continually go off topic, do not provide facts and make irrational remarks. If you do not believe me, this can be proven by their reputation scores or by a sampling of their posts.
that's why people should be allowed to defend themselves....if we don't stand up for ourselves we become sheep in a corral or fish in a barrel, sitting back and allowing the government to feed/cloth/care for us as it sees fit. no matter how far at the bottom our value is stamped on our foreheads.....or shall I say our individual tax value.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Those numbers are a bit old, but even then, it was nearly $1,100 per year per household.
2011, 2012 and 2013 were higher. Each and every year.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid - John Wayne
TIP TO NEW VISITORS TO THIS FORUM - To improve your blogging pleasure it is recommended to ignore (Through editing your prefere) the posts of the following bloggers - DemocraticVoiceofReason, Scotsgod08 and Smoking Bananas. They continually go off topic, do not provide facts and make irrational remarks. If you do not believe me, this can be proven by their reputation scores or by a sampling of their posts.
that's why people should be allowed to defend themselves....if we don't stand up for ourselves we become sheep in a corral or fish in a barrel, sitting back and allowing the government to feed/cloth/care for us as it sees fit. no matter how far at the bottom our value is stamped on our foreheads.....or shall I say our individual tax value.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Police surveillance without warrants - The police can watch you walk up and down the street without a warrant. Why would they need a warrant for the cameras?
Most people do not have a problem with cameras. For those that do, it is constitutional and the images are stored temporarily then deleted. If anyone is accused of a crime, the defense attorneys have access to the same footage. And, being filmed is not an accusation, so, the 6th Amendment does not apply. If you want to waive around the constitution then the concept of "no reasonable expectation in public places" should be fairly easy to grasp.
not quite on topic but part of the problem... a seemingly growing trend nationwide is for police who are being filmed to harass and or arrest citizens for simply filming their actions,be it public arrests or violent encounters...
some are having a hard time grasping the fact its a tool that can be used in either direction
Police surveillance without warrants - The police can watch you walk up and down the street without a warrant. Why would they need a warrant for the cameras?
Most people do not have a problem with cameras. For those that do, it is constitutional and the images are stored temporarily then deleted. If anyone is accused of a crime, the defense attorneys have access to the same footage. And, being filmed is not an accusation, so, the 6th Amendment does not apply. If you want to waive around the constitution then the concept of "no reasonable expectation in public places" should be fairly easy to grasp.
just because it isn't illegal or against the constitution doesn't make it right
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
