Real life court experience with video evidence:
Things you need to consider when adding cameras to your home defense plan.
Things you need to consider when adding cameras to your home defense plan.
How cameras can hurt your claim of self defense
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
Definitely something to think about when setting up a camera system.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,198
A camera merely documents the field of view of the camera.
A camera doesn't document the shooter's field of view, visual focus, what the shooter saw or didn't see, perceptions, thoughts, and decisions.
A camera doesn't document the shooter's field of view, visual focus, what the shooter saw or didn't see, perceptions, thoughts, and decisions.
sparkyv
Member
A camera doesn't stop the BG. A camera is not for me.
theotherwaldo
Member
I like my cameras.
I don't use the DVR that came with them.
The cameras are there to alert me, not to provide evidence... .
I don't use the DVR that came with them.
The cameras are there to alert me, not to provide evidence... .
Before I even view the video, I agree that cameras can work against a justified defender. Our field-of-view clearly sees about what a 50mm lens would show, in terms of a 35mm film camera, or “full-frame” digital camera. Our eyes may pick up movement, with our peripheral vision, but that is not clearly seen, as things heat up, our brain will start narrowing the area of clear focus. A typical mobile phone records with a lens that is equivalent to what a 26mm lens sees. A photographer would consider 26mm to be wide-angle. So, even if we mount a mobile phone to the center of our chest, to “document” our defensive incident, the phone will see more than what we, the defender sees. A typical surveillance video lens uses an ultra-wide-angle lens, and if positioned high, at a downward angle, will show FAR more than a defender will see.
The grand jury, petit jury, judge, and court of public opinion will not only have the benefit of hindsight, but may well have photo/video evidence that shows a totally different perspective than what the defender was able to see. Of course, we SHOULD be judged by what we knew, in real time, at the time the incident was occurring. “Should” be.
The grand jury, petit jury, judge, and court of public opinion will not only have the benefit of hindsight, but may well have photo/video evidence that shows a totally different perspective than what the defender was able to see. Of course, we SHOULD be judged by what we knew, in real time, at the time the incident was occurring. “Should” be.
Bcwitt
Member
I blame the NFL.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,650
Yeah, but if you have one and it saves what it sees, police will still take the recording.
That would be an extremely bad reason to not have cameras in a security system.
My cameras are outside. I'm not going outside to greet an uninvited guest. They talk to the RING and get trespassed if they don't leave immediately (which has never happened). Bad guys leave once they figure out they're being recorded. It really is that simple, op.
Can you explain how that might happen?
TV video of the attempt to murder the white truck driver Reginald Denny failed to convict the attackers. Reginald was driving down Normandie Avenue, Los Angles, in 1992, pulled out of his truck, and attacked by a mob. Damian Williams broke a cinder block on Reginald Denny’s head and danced in joy.
Reginald Denny: The Innocent Bystander Whose Televised Assault Came To Define The Rodney King Riots
The video now requires proof of age to watch.
None of the attackers were convicted of anything, despite massive media coverage of the various videos of the attack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Reginald_Denny
A biased jury will use video evidence to support whatever verdict they want. Video is not your friend, it can only help those who wish to persecute you.
Reginald Denny: The Innocent Bystander Whose Televised Assault Came To Define The Rodney King Riots
The video now requires proof of age to watch.
None of the attackers were convicted of anything, despite massive media coverage of the various videos of the attack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Reginald_Denny
A biased jury will use video evidence to support whatever verdict they want. Video is not your friend, it can only help those who wish to persecute you.
That is entirely off the topic of the use of vieo evidence in a defense of justification.
That general statement is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Bcwitt
Member
Off topic how?
luzyfuerza
Member
It seems to me that this discussion has brought out many of the points made when police body cameras were first being implemented.
The perspective isn't the same!
Our eyes work differently than the camera!
Cameras can't pick up nuance!
Its true that experts are needed to educate juries and the public about these differences. But I think that the net effect of body cams has been positive.
The perspective isn't the same!
Our eyes work differently than the camera!
Cameras can't pick up nuance!
Its true that experts are needed to educate juries and the public about these differences. But I think that the net effect of body cams has been positive.
Scrapiron45
Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2018
- Messages
- 165
We tend to be easily impressed with our own technology but it's not uncommon to realize many of the trinkets introduced into our daily lives are not the problem solving wonders the salesman proclaimed. A learning curve is just part of the deal.
onibaba
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2006
- Messages
- 46
citizenconn
Member
There is a youtube channel called Audit the Audit that is comprised primarily of police interactions using police body cam and user video footage. The videos chosen primarily show police misconduct that often results in police officers/departments being demoted/fired/sued based on the footage.
Were it not for the footage in these instances there is no doubt there would be no accountability. I think we have come a long way since the Reginald Denny days and think in almost every instance any video footage you can provide that supports your position is a good thing. Look at the Kyle Rittenhouse case. Were it not for video footage that guy would be rotting in prison.
It does go both ways though and if what you are doing is can be seen as questionable then you have to live with those consequences too. A few months ago we had a guy with a gun go into a taqueria here in Houston (we have discussed this on other threads here) and rob several people. When he had his back turned one of the patrons pulled his own gun and shot the robber several times. Store video showed the incident and also showed the last couple of shots coming when the robber was already down and the last one with the patron standing over the robber in what could be considered a coup de grace shot. In instances like these even though the video shows an objective view of what happened it does not show what was going through the minds of the patron and the robber. The danger of video like this is that it is always easy to draw subjective conclusions without understanding the context.
Were it not for the footage in these instances there is no doubt there would be no accountability. I think we have come a long way since the Reginald Denny days and think in almost every instance any video footage you can provide that supports your position is a good thing. Look at the Kyle Rittenhouse case. Were it not for video footage that guy would be rotting in prison.
It does go both ways though and if what you are doing is can be seen as questionable then you have to live with those consequences too. A few months ago we had a guy with a gun go into a taqueria here in Houston (we have discussed this on other threads here) and rob several people. When he had his back turned one of the patrons pulled his own gun and shot the robber several times. Store video showed the incident and also showed the last couple of shots coming when the robber was already down and the last one with the patron standing over the robber in what could be considered a coup de grace shot. In instances like these even though the video shows an objective view of what happened it does not show what was going through the minds of the patron and the robber. The danger of video like this is that it is always easy to draw subjective conclusions without understanding the context.
Last edited:
onibaba
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2006
- Messages
- 46
What a good point, also.
