Boston Bombings Confirms Need for Street Cameras

Polydectes · Apr 22, 2013

David said:
Nothing wise about him, he was just really good in bed. Not worth idolizing unless you want to buy something expensive.

What ever you say.

Seems you have poor vocabulary, my thinking there is wisdom in his quotes isn't the same as idolizing.

You say I have posted foolish stuff.

You thinking that my seeing wisdom in words translates into idolizing you either don't know what idolizing means or you are being obtuse because you have little to say.

Either way you have no business saying anybody else is foolish

tecoyah · Apr 22, 2013

David and Polydectes.....before this goes further.

We are walking toward something I prefer to avoid.

Please step back and evaluate

DodgeFB · Apr 22, 2013

tecoyah said:
David and Polydectes.....before this goes further.

We are walking toward something I prefer to avoid.

Please step back and evaluate

Good call!

Protectionist · May 3, 2013

DodgeFB said:
I guess this says how I feel better than I could.

AUTHOR:[Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)[:[Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.~~ATTRIBUTION:]BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 (1963).~~

You need not give a source for a quotation which is OFF TOPIC and irrelevant to the topic of the thread. Street cameras provide PERMANENT SAFETY, not "temporary", and they do not involve any one giving up any "essential liberty", or any liberty at all. Individuals in the view of the cameras are no more in the view of those cameras, than they are in the view of hundreds of people where the cameras are situated. And the recordings of them are no more than the memories of the hundreds of people who may see you on the street, in a park, in a store, etc.

Protectionist · May 3, 2013

DodgeFB said:
That is your opinion. I happen to disagree. Seems you are willing to give up some liberty just to feel "safe". We have no rights if we fail to claim them. Maybe you are willing to live like a hamster on a wheel. I am not. I tend to take responsibility for my own safety in most situations. Too me it is sad that you are willing to bow down so give up some libertymuch to feel safe. A camera may help catch the one that hurt you. But it will not keep them from hurting you. It will just watch it happen.

1. Neither I, or you, or anyone is having to "give up some liberty" because of public cameras. None at all.

2. Hamster on a wheel ? Doesn't make any sense.

3. You may take responsibility for your own safety, but that's not good enough. We're talking about everyone's safety. And you're not even able to take responsibility for your own safety in much more than 51% (most) of the cases.

4. I am not bowing down to anything. I don't even know what you're talking about.

5. You contradicted your second sentence by what you said in your fort sentence. If (as you said) "A camera may help catch the one that hurt you", then yes, it keep me (et al) from being hurt by bad guys who would be (as you said) caught with the camera help, and imprisoned.

6. Cameras can both help police to catch criminals after crimes are commited, and in some cases, prevent crimes from happening. If cameras has been in place at the Boston marathon finish line, the bombers would have been caught the same day of the bombing, and MIT police officer Sean Collier would be alive today.

7. If cameras had been in place at the gas station where Jessica Lynn Heeringa was abducted from, that crime probably never would have occured. If it did, cops would probably have already have solved the case. Instead, they're stumped with no leads. Same thing with the Leila Fowler case (and 1000s of others)

Protectionist · May 3, 2013

Polydectes said:
That would be a prison. This nation is a place of freedom.

Yes it is. Freedom for criminals to exercise the freedom to commit crime, without being detected. :giggle:

Protectionist · May 3, 2013

Polydectes said:
Of course there is different ideas of freedom, but i don't see how watching everything someone does is freedom.

I understand i am simply not seeing it, sadly those that are on the other side are not very articulate. Or too absorbed with being correct to fully explain it.

The idea of watching everything someone does isn't primarily freedom, it is security (from being killed, robbed, raped, etc). And the freedom aspect is the freedom of being free from being a crime victim of these crimes. This is hard to figure out ?

Protectionist · May 3, 2013

Polydectes said:
thank you

Then why not allow cameras inside homes, it could catch the most heinous crimes of all child abuse.
Not true there are web sights television shows, even channels that do nothing but this.

thousands of crimes are caught on tape every day, it didn't stop those crimes, I don't think it would stop any crimes. It might make a person who would lift a news paper not do that, but rapes and murders, even the bombing in Boston was caught on tape out didn't stop that. Technically we are all capable of being watched all the time, cell phone cameras, how many police have you seen acting poorly on tape, their own dash cameras even. It simply records the crime.

Not sure ego Ben is.

You simply are wrong. Public cameras DO deter crime wherever they are placed. In some cases, criminals are quite dumb and they commit their crimes right in front of the cameras (LOL - we see them on truthTV all the time). The videos are the best friend police and prosecutors ever had, and the subsequent crimes those criminals would have committed, ARE STOPPED, while those criminals sit in their prison cells for years.

The Boston bombing crime might have been stopped IF a street camera was in place, and the killing of Officer Sean Collier definitely would have been prevented.

Protectionist · May 3, 2013

tecoyah said:
To me at least....video in public makes sense....we are all seen regardless, and hopefully act accordingly. If we do not.....Busted.

Exactly. Simple as that.

David · May 3, 2013

Ay, use the multiquote button!

Anyway, by the logic of anti-street camera argument, we should do away with CCCs and guards. It's idiotic, people are either paranoid or are tired of paying tickets for all the red lights they've run. Crazies and criminals shouldn't even have a say in these kinds of debates.

DodgeFB · May 3, 2013

Protectionist said:
1. Neither I, or you, or anyone is having to "give up some liberty" because of public cameras. None at all.

2. Hamster on a wheel ? Doesn't make any sense.

3. You may take responsibility for your own safety, but that's not good enough. We're talking about everyone's safety. And you're not even able to take responsibility for your own safety in much more than 51% (most) of the cases.

4. I am not bowing down to anything. I don't even know what you're talking about.

5. You contradicted your second sentence by what you said in your fort sentence. If (as you said) "A camera may help catch the one that hurt you", then yes, it keep me (et al) from being hurt by bad guys who would be (as you said) caught with the camera help, and imprisoned.

6. Cameras can both help police to catch criminals after crimes are commited, and in some cases, prevent crimes from happening. If cameras has been in place at the Boston marathon finish line, the bombers would have been caught the same day of the bombing, and MIT police officer Sean Collier would be alive today.

7. If cameras had been in place at the gas station where Jessica Lynn Heeringa was abducted from, that crime probably never would have occured. If it did, cops would probably have already have solved the case. Instead, they're stumped with no leads. Same thing with the Leila Fowler case (and 1000s of others)

We will just disagree. I don't need to get my opinions from you. Hell I don't even know you. And you sure don't know me. I don't care about your opinions, so I reserve the right to have my own thank you very much.

Just relax. I am not required to make sense to you. And you are not required to understand me.

Protectionist · May 3, 2013

David said:
Ay, use the multiquote button!

Anyway, by the logic of anti-street camera argument, we should do away with CCCs and guards. It's idiotic, people are either paranoid or are tired of paying tickets for all the red lights they've run. Crazies and criminals shouldn't even have a say in these kinds of debates.

1. You need to be a bit more specific. Your words are all over the place. It's tough to figure out what the heck you're talking about.

2. The logic of street cameras has nothing to so with having or not having guards. I've been in security for 35 years, and both guards and cameras are used simultaneously. Do you know what you're talking about ? And CCCs are generally referred to as CCTV.

3. if people are tired of paying tickets for running red lights, I have a solution for them. Don't run red lights, or better yet, stop driving entirely.

Protectionist · May 3, 2013

DodgeFB said:
We will just disagree. I don't need to get my opinions from you. Hell I don't even know you. And you sure don't know me. I don't care about your opinions, so I reserve the right to have my own thank you very much.

Just relax. I am not required to make sense to you. And you are not required to understand me.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here, never did, and I'm already relaxed.

David · May 3, 2013

Protectionist said:
1. You need to be a bit more specific. Your words are all over the place. It's tough to figure out what the heck you're talking about.

2. The logic of street cameras has nothing to so with having or not having guards. I've been in security for 35 years, and both guards and cameras are used simultaneously. Do you know what you're talking about ? And CCCs are generally referred to as CCTV.

3. if people are tired of paying tickets for running red lights, I have a solution for them. Don't run red lights, or better yet, stop driving entirely.

Attacking a post that agrees with your point? :giggle: You're so stuck in defence mode with me, you read words without regard to context...

Protectionist · May 4, 2013

David said:
Attacking a post that agrees with your point? :giggle: You're so stuck in defence mode with me, you read words without regard to context...

Maybe you got right on that one. OK.

David · May 5, 2013

Protectionist said:
Maybe you got right on that one. OK.

lol

A rule of thumb when dealing with me: I'm not a rightist or a leftist, I consider each issue independently before forming an opinion. So never pigeonhole me into an ideology because you'll just end up confused.

Protectionist · May 5, 2013

David said:
lol

A rule of thumb when dealing with me: I'm not a rightist or a leftist, I consider each issue independently before forming an opinion. So never pigeonhole me into an ideology because you'll just end up confused.

Same with me. I'm a registered Independent, and I tend to be left on economic matters, but right on most other things. I can't be pigeonholed either. In your case, I was in a hurry at the time, and probably didn't read your post carefully enough. It happens. :giggle:

Boston Bombings Confirms Need for Street Cameras

Similar threads