Duff Man Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Also, this might be straight ignorance on my part, but what is the point of the "live cameras" if no one's watching them(?)... is it that expensive to have them record all day, and then delete and start over if nothing significant happens? Seems like something pretty reasonable taxpayers could actually get behind. Some places use live cameras to monitor who is at the door when they have to buzz people into the building. The expense of recording is relative to how many cameras you're recording, and how long of a window you're keeping the data before it deletes. You're going to have to pay someone to install and maintain the system, as the hard drives in the DVRs will eventually go bad and need to be replaced, not to mention you have to employ someone to be on-call to pull the data when needed. So there is a significant amount of overhead involved, and while I'm sure there is some potential for taxpayer money to be used, nothing is going to happen until the local businesses in a given area step up to the plate and pool their resources for the good of the neighborhood. Case in point: The Loop has just this month gone live with their cameras http://universitycit...the-delmar-loop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Also, this might be straight ignorance on my part, but what is the point of the "live cameras" if no one's watching them(?)... is it that expensive to have them record all day, and then delete and start over if nothing significant happens? Seems like something pretty reasonable taxpayers could actually get behind. Why don't we have one pointed at each one of us every day to monitor everything we do. That way.......oh never mind...... This reasonable taxpayer will balk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Why don't we have one pointed at each one of us every day to monitor everything we do. That way.......oh never mind...... This reasonable taxpayer will balk I've been meaning to talk to you about that Rich. You've been spending far too much time walking around the office and not enough time at your desk working. Also, the other day when you were just lounging on your deck at home, you should have been doing a little yard work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I've been meaning to talk to you about that Rich. You've been spending far too much time walking around the office and not enough time at your desk working. Also, the other day when you were just lounging on your deck at home, you should have been doing a little yard work. OH MY GOD!!!!!!! WHERE IS MY TIN-FOIL HAT.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 The surveillance cameras in this case were privately owned and, as Duff Man said, used for things like buzzing people in to a building. I am not sure why there is so much discussion about what taxpayers think of them; it has nothing to do with them. Public ones like The Loop cameras are still fairly rare on city streets in this country (there is virtually nowhere in Greater London that isn't under public surveillance) even though they're being used more. Cities like Baltimore and Chicago have put them into neighborhoods with high crime; I've seen some things that say they have led to lower crime rates and the savings fighting crime have outweighed the cost of using them, but I've seen other things that say the results are less clear. They've been used for years on interstates (bridges, toll booths, state lines, etc.). But public cameras really rare in places like residential corners in the CWE, so any surveillance would be done at a private building owner's discretion, even though I think the police have the right to get the recording from a private camera near a crime scene. Anyway, it's not a taxpayer issue in this case. I'd have a hard time believing US citizens would accept public surveillance the way they have in the UK since we're a lot more outspoken about privacy and public expenditures. There's also the Fourth Amendment, although some light Googling hasn't turned up any situations in which public surveillance or GPS tracking has violated it; I think the idea is that what you do in public is fair game. Hopefully that steers this from becoming an argument about taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Metzinger Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Hello, Truman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NextYearBill Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I work for a company that has put cameras up on the streets around housing projects in Alton, IL. Talk about a tense situation when they saw us putting those up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I work for a company that has put cameras up on the streets around housing projects in Alton, IL. Talk about a tense situation when they saw us putting those up... In Chicago, they're at the top of lightpoles and have bright blue blinking lights and CPD logos on four sides of a box. They stand out in a big way. I can only imagine the scene when those went up. I lived on Austin, one stop west of Central on the Green Line, and from the platform at Central you could see those blinking lights all the way down the street, about one every block. No other streets around there have them, though. So some of the main streets - with convenience stores, fast food joints, barbershops - are relatively safe, but then the residential side streets have no surveillance and that's where things happen. So when the CPD says crime is down where they put in the cameras (the main streets), that's true. But overall there's no difference. 42 people shot in Chicago this weekend (7 in St. Louis, with 3 deaths). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 The volleyball team has a Facebook page, for those who haven't seen it yet. They changed their cover photo to a nice one of Megan and their new profile photo is a "20" in a circle. They're dedicating the season to her with the slogan "BE INSPIRED." No word yet if that means they're retiring her number, but I'd imagine so. I don't have a link because I can't get Facebook at work but the page is called "Saint Louis Billiken Volleyball" if you want to search that and Like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbtds Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 But overall there's no difference. 42 people shot in Chicago this weekend (7 in St. Louis, with 3 deaths). 2.6 million live in the City of Chicago not including the collar counties or surrounding suburbs of Cook County. 318 thousand live in the City of St. Louis not including St Louis County and suburbs or the Metro East and suburbs. St.Louis City population is 12% of the City of Chicago. 12% of 42 is 5. Therefore the shooting rate in St.Louis City is greater per person than in the City of Chicago. 42 divided by 2.6 million is .0162% 7 divided by 318 thousand is .0201% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HusakAttack Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I work for a company that has put cameras up on the streets around housing projects in Alton, IL. Talk about a tense situation when they saw us putting those up...I work at a company where we type in a regular sized font Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NextYearBill Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 In Chicago, they're at the top of lightpoles and have bright blue blinking lights and CPD logos on four sides of a box. They stand out in a big way. I can only imagine the scene when those went up. I lived on Austin, one stop west of Central on the Green Line, and from the platform at Central you could see those blinking lights all the way down the street, about one every block. No other streets around there have them, though. So some of the main streets - with convenience stores, fast food joints, barbershops - are relatively safe, but then the residential side streets have no surveillance and that's where things happen. So when the CPD says crime is down where they put in the cameras (the main streets), that's true. But overall there's no difference. 42 people shot in Chicago this weekend (7 in St. Louis, with 3 deaths). Ended up being a pretty profitable job because we had to re-sell them dome cameras after kids would go under the original ones and toss a basketball at them to point upward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NextYearBill Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I work at a company where we type in a regular sized font and offer super sizing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HusakAttack Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 and offer super sizing?yup, complimentary for the ladies of course... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 The volleyball team has a Facebook page, for those who haven't seen it yet. They changed their cover photo to a nice one of Megan and their new profile photo is a "20" in a circle. They're dedicating the season to her with the slogan "BE INSPIRED." No word yet if that means they're retiring her number, but I'd imagine so. I don't have a link because I can't get Facebook at work but the page is called "Saint Louis Billiken Volleyball" if you want to search that and Like it. -what happened to the pistol tour across America? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbizzle09 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 The volleyball team has a Facebook page, for those who haven't seen it yet. They changed their cover photo to a nice one of Megan and their new profile photo is a "20" in a circle. They're dedicating the season to her with the slogan "BE INSPIRED." No word yet if that means they're retiring her number, but I'd imagine so. I don't have a link because I can't get Facebook at work but the page is called "Saint Louis Billiken Volleyball" if you want to search that and Like it. Here is the link to the page: https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Saint-Louis-Billiken-Volleyball/129136993869202 It is currently at 266 'Likes'. Perhaps we can push that number quite a bit higher with participation from this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbofive Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 2.6 million live in the City of Chicago not including the collar counties or surrounding suburbs of Cook County. 318 thousand live in the City of St. Louis not including St Louis County and suburbs or the Metro East and suburbs. St.Louis City population is 12% of the City of Chicago. 12% of 42 is 5. Therefore the shooting rate in St.Louis City is greater per person than in the City of Chicago. 42 divided by 2.6 million is .0162% 7 divided by 318 thousand is .0201% i knew those numbers were gonna be a bloodbath when i first started reading. by your estimation, at the rate that people were shot this weekend, there would be a greater than 1% chance of any given st. louisan being shot on the weekend in a calendar year. it's actually an order of magnitude less likely than that. still fuoked up, but there's not THAT many bullets whizzing around. that being said, i'm happy as hell to not have to deal w/ that sh!t anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 The surveillance cameras in this case were privately owned and, as Duff Man said, used for things like buzzing people in to a building. I am not sure why there is so much discussion about what taxpayers think of them; it has nothing to do with them. Public ones like The Loop cameras are still fairly rare on city streets in this country (there is virtually nowhere in Greater London that isn't under public surveillance) even though they're being used more. Cities like Baltimore and Chicago have put them into neighborhoods with high crime; I've seen some things that say they have led to lower crime rates and the savings fighting crime have outweighed the cost of using them, but I've seen other things that say the results are less clear. They've been used for years on interstates (bridges, toll booths, state lines, etc.). But public cameras really rare in places like residential corners in the CWE, so any surveillance would be done at a private building owner's discretion, even though I think the police have the right to get the recording from a private camera near a crime scene. Anyway, it's not a taxpayer issue in this case. I'd have a hard time believing US citizens would accept public surveillance the way they have in the UK since we're a lot more outspoken about privacy and public expenditures. There's also the Fourth Amendment, although some light Googling hasn't turned up any situations in which public surveillance or GPS tracking has violated it; I think the idea is that what you do in public is fair game. Hopefully that steers this from becoming an argument about taxes. Alderman Antonio French tweeted the other day that since cameras have been installed in his ward in North St. Louis, the number of murders has decreased by 80%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majerus mojo Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 The surveillance cameras in this case were privately owned and, as Duff Man said, used for things like buzzing people in to a building. I am not sure why there is so much discussion about what taxpayers think of them; it has nothing to do with them. Public ones like The Loop cameras are still fairly rare on city streets in this country (there is virtually nowhere in Greater London that isn't under public surveillance) even though they're being used more. Cities like Baltimore and Chicago have put them into neighborhoods with high crime; I've seen some things that say they have led to lower crime rates and the savings fighting crime have outweighed the cost of using them, but I've seen other things that say the results are less clear. They've been used for years on interstates (bridges, toll booths, state lines, etc.). But public cameras really rare in places like residential corners in the CWE, so any surveillance would be done at a private building owner's discretion, even though I think the police have the right to get the recording from a private camera near a crime scene. Anyway, it's not a taxpayer issue in this case. I'd have a hard time believing US citizens would accept public surveillance the way they have in the UK since we're a lot more outspoken about privacy and public expenditures. There's also the Fourth Amendment, although some light Googling hasn't turned up any situations in which public surveillance or GPS tracking has violated it; I think the idea is that what you do in public is fair game. Hopefully that steers this from becoming an argument about taxes. Alderman Antonio French tweeted the other day that since cameras have been installed in his ward in North St. Louis, the number of murders has decreased by 80%. Sorry, in my original response I was assuming the cameras were police operated for some reason (like the ones Box mentions). Also, please forget I ever mentioned the word "taxpayers" (never again). Not sure why people would be that upset over a few cameras set-up, especially after a crime like this.. Maybe not have them live-monitored, but at least available to review at the end of each day if something like this (a crime) occurs. But to each his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 2.6 million live in the City of Chicago not including the collar counties or surrounding suburbs of Cook County. 318 thousand live in the City of St. Louis not including St Louis County and suburbs or the Metro East and suburbs. St.Louis City population is 12% of the City of Chicago. 12% of 42 is 5. Therefore the shooting rate in St.Louis City is greater per person than in the City of Chicago. 42 divided by 2.6 million is .0162% 7 divided by 318 thousand is .0201% I know this. I wasn't comparing the two. I was just pointing out that both are seeing a lot of shootings these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Alderman Antonio French tweeted the other day that since cameras have been installed in his ward in North St. Louis, the number of murders has decreased by 80%. Interesting. I wonder how they've been implemented- how many, where located, and so forth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 -what happened to the pistol tour across America? Still happening. It's being planned everyday. I stop working 9/13, move 9/14, go to two weddings on 9/15 and 9/22 in Cincy, and hit the road for 3 months starting 9/24. It's not looking like I'll hit any of our road games before Christmas; they'll be in Washington well after we pass through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westy03 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 The reward has been raised to $20,000 by an anonymous donor. They better catch this fuocker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Still happening. It's being planned everyday. I stop working 9/13, move 9/14, go to two weddings on 9/15 and 9/22 in Cincy, and hit the road for 3 months starting 9/24. It's not looking like I'll hit our road game before Christmas; they'll be in Washington well after we pass through. -corrected (as we channel our inner-syracuse this season (we do go half way across the nation to play a road game, boeheim would never allow that so there is a difference)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbizzle09 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 The reward has been raised to $20,000 by an anonymous donor. They better catch this fuocker Here is the link for that in STLToday.com. Also, it appears that CrimeStoppers is providing an additional $1,000. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/35b8254c-ebc2-11e1-8539-001a4bcf6878.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.