Posted on 03/20/2008 11:21:26 PM PDT by walkerk
A new UC Berkeley study of San Francisco's 68 security cameras appears to indicate what many city officials have long suspected: The controversial devices perched at the city's roughest street corners don't have much of an effect on violent crime.
The researchers examined 59,706 crimes occurring within 1,000 feet of the cameras between Jan. 1, 2005 and Jan. 28, 2008. While homicides within 250 feet of the cameras were down, they spiked in the areas 250 to 500 feet from the cameras - indicating people just moved down the street to kill each other.
Other violent crimes had no change. The only cameras' only positive effect appears to be the 22 percent drop in property crime within 100 feet of the cameras, though people broke into cars parked near the cameras at the same rate as they did before the cameras were installed, according to the study released today.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Their problem is too many barbarians, but you’ll never get a liberal to even say the word.
Yes, a camera every 100 feet in every direction should do the trick.
For the 68 cameras, over a three-year period, there was about one crime per day for each camera.
“they just moved down the street to kill each other” - great line.
I left my heart in San Francisco, but they got a good picture of the guy who took it.
-Traveler
It's doing wonders in the UK...NOT!
The police show up in time to tape off the crime scene & photograph the lifeless body.
They should put the cameras in the city-council chambers while the council votes to treat the U.S. Military like garbage, instead of the heroes they are - one of the most grievous of all crimes.
we are NOT all equal.
If the police responded while the crime was in progress they would: 1. Be accused of arresting people for “thought crime” because they would have to guess what was happening before it happened (didn’t someone make a movie...?). 2. Get there while the bullets were flying, therefore putting their own life in danger...risking a union lawsuit against the city for reckless endangerment. 3. In any case it is a fact of law that the police are not required to protect any one person against any crime, therefore it would be a crime to show up too early!
You are correct. Police have what is called indemnification. Ie they can't be sued for NOT reaching the victim "in time".
Which is probably a good thing, because then they'd spend all their time in court.
It’s not a “good” thing but seems to be necessary. However, those idiots who are forever getting elected by the public (demanding to be protected) are using the unwritten (?) assumption to disarm all of us law-abiding citizens. “Call a Cop; when seconds count, they are only minutes away”
Necessary for what?
To give them something to do/sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.