Friendly note. Law enforcement is not monitoring social interactions and your comment will not be noted in their records. You will not get any special treatment by posting bootlicking trash.
44 Likes
Damage was done. Resident was able to see that someone dressed as a cop and carrying a gun was approaching the house and tampering with security systems. If I were on a jury I would consider whether that is threatening enough to justify answering the knock with bullets.
21 Likes
This video shows what criminals do when they’re hoping to not be identified by surveillance cameras.
To be fair, the criminal pictured here isn’t very good at it. He’s supposed to hide his face first.
41 Likes
Might want to make an appointment with your eye doctor, yo; it seems like your vision is skewed.
33 Likes
Should have gone to Specsavers…
16 Likes
(text requirement ruins my already weak joke)
2 Likes
So he had a warrant to search the house and seize any cameras he found?
26 Likes
Just out of curiosity, without due process, how do we differentiate between “bad guys” and “good guys that the cops don’t like?”
24 Likes
Clearly the cop in this situation knows CT is a both a one and two party consent state and wanted to help the home owner stay abreast of eavesdropping violations. (budmp pish)
3 Likes
How is this different than taking away a smartphone from someone filming a police interaction (even if it is returned later)?
19 Likes
This sentence is a blanket statement about blanket statements.
1 Like
Until they show up with a search warrant granted for dubious cause, for all electronic devices, take your NVR, and you get it back wiped.
I’ll stick with Wyze.
2 Likes
well for one, it could also be considered vandalism.
@Loren_Pechtel He’s at the front door. If someone was watching the camera to know when attack or run, they already know he’s there. The only reason to blind the camera at that point is so he’s not on it while interacting with the homeowner.
@anothernewbbaccount Don’t even try it. Electrifying a camera would be considered a booby trap and illegal pretty much everywhere. It would be assaulting an officer for sure.
9 Likes
Oh, I’d play fair and put a warning notice up.
9 Likes
What’s that argument authorities always use to justify mass surveillance? Oh yeah, “if you’ve got nothing to hide…”
Guess it only goes the one way, though.
21 Likes
The reolink, at least, comes with cloud backups. And, besides, it’s just files on a drive on your network, you can sync them to whatever you want.
10 Likes
“Bad guys”
You mean like all those people who defend cops when they shoot unarmed black people in the back a dozen times?
Or “bad guys” as in people who call the cops specifically to oppress someone of an ethnic or racial minority?
Or “bad guys” like prosecutors who never ever charge cops with any crimes even when there is clear and public video evidence?
Those bad guys?
I’ll be the first to admit that I often struggle with nuance, and gray thinking, but “Bad guys” is such a fucking useless loaded term designed to put police on a pedestal. As if they’re not directly descended from violent murderous union busters, and before that, runaway slave patrol.
22 Likes
I wonder if some of the “good cops” still on the force are afraid of being set-up ala Frank Serpico or simply murdered outright?
8 Likes
That’s making the assumption that cops can read.
2 Likes
