Cameras on a CTA bus identified a man who shot and killed a passenger this week.
I can't understand why anyone would object to the use of these cameras in CTA buses.
I don't understand how anyone objects to cameras being used in Chicago taxicabs in a similar manner.
Justice will be served and the truth will be known by the digital recordings.
May Kiyanna Salter rest in peace once her apparent killer, now being held without bond, is finally found guilty and punished severely for his crime.
Perhaps cabdriver Haroon Paryani would be alive today or his killer given a life- or death-sentence had a camera been recording the events in his cab on that fateful night.
The "7 cameras caught CTA bus killing" story by Annie Sweeney can be found in the Sun-Times on page 8 today.
I support installing these cameras in all taxis where violent crime and relative anonymity is prevalent. Almost anywhere and everywhere, especially the more densely populated urban and suburban areas.
-Mike Foulks
Subject: Taxicab Safety
Name: Cub Fan and Bud Man
Date Posted: Sep 22, 08 - 8:37 PM
Message: Comment #1 from a post on cabmarket: "it seems that those drivers in other cities who have used cameras have found them to be a successful deterrent against crime".
Comment #2 from a post on cabmarket: "Numbers don't lie - in cities like Toronto and San Francisco where cameras were mandated, crimes against drivers have decreased."
I would like to see these "numbers" from other cities in relationship to their general crime rates: Chicago, Toronto and San Francisco.
Toronto has an official population of 2,503,281 (source: CBCA). Compare the murder RATE, for example, in all of Canada where “Police reported 594 homicides, down slightly from 606 in 2006. The homicide rate fell for the second year in a row, continuing a long-term decline that began in the mid-1970s."
Is this long term decline because of cameras? Is it because of shields? Are shield and cameras manufacturers just riding the public relations wave and misleading the public? Who knows!
"By the end of 2004, overall crime against Toronto taxi drivers had decreased by almost 65%." (Source: http://members.allstream.net/~ghmanley/positive.html) Any updates Mr. Manly?
Chicago Crime statistics:
With a poluation of 2,836,658: 416,299 crimes in the last 365 days, 295 were taxicab-related. (Sources: CPD Crime Summary, gis.chicagopolice.org & Every Block Chicago). Is there anything that suggests cameras are reducing crime against cab drivers? N. O.
San Francisco has an population of 764,976. (Source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/07/09/population_of_us_cities_2007)
San Francisco crime rate:
Almost all crimes reported in SF are higher than the national average! (Source: CityRating.com)
But according to San Francisco's recent Surveillance Camera Study (Source: www.aclunc.org):
"Surveillance Cameras are Not Solution"
These are the findings:
1) Studies from around the world have shown that surveillance cameras DO NOT prevent or reduce crime.
2) Surveillance cameras also DO NOT appear to be deterring crime in San Francisco communities.
3) Crime has INCREASED in more than half (8 of 15) of the locations where cameras have been installed.
The bottomed line: The city of Chicago is pushing cameras as a choice for OWNERS, NOT drivers for the smaller "green" cabs in which shields do not fit.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Cameras on a CTA bus identified a man who shot and killed a passenger this week.
I can't understand why anyone would object to the use of these cameras in CTA buses.
I don't understand how anyone objects to cameras being used in Chicago taxicabs in a similar manner.
Justice will be served and the truth will be known by the digital recordings.
May Kiyanna Salter rest in peace once her apparent killer, now being held without bond, is finally found guilty and punished severely for his crime.
Perhaps cabdriver Haroon Paryani would be alive today or his killer given a life- or death-sentence had a camera been recording the events in his cab on that fateful night.
The "7 cameras caught CTA bus killing" story by Annie Sweeney can be found in the Sun-Times on page 8 today.
I support installing these cameras in all taxis where violent crime and relative anonymity is prevalent. Almost anywhere and everywhere, especially the more densely populated urban and suburban areas.
-Mike Foulks
In this case, it has.
Taking off the streets a man who would recklessly fire his gun in the manner described reduces crime.
This one particular criminal is now behind bars. He will likely be there for some considerable length of time, if not forever until dead.
His own mother identified him from the images broadcast on local news media. She did the right thing.
I doubt very much that the apparent shooter would have turned himself in or that he would be so quickly in custody of the justice system - if ever at all - without these 7 cameras and the help of the media.
You seem to be focused on a camera not preventing or not deterring crimes like these.
I am more focused on cameras catching killers.
Cabdrivers are killed with the shield. Cabdrivers are killed without the shield.
Cabdrivers will be killed with camera. Cabdrivers will be killed without the camera.
This isn't about the shield vs. cameras. This is about what the value is that cameras provide.
A picture of cabdrivers' killers and those killers being clearly identified and brought to justice is what a camera can provide which a shield cannot do,
Not to mention all the pictures of cabdrivers' robbers, attackers, and abusers.
Quite frankly, I don't have any interest to debate historical crime trends. I know it is getting more violent on the streets on Chicago generally speaking.
A camera in my taxicab will do the same thing a shield also does - deter some of these predatory criminals to possibly find a taxi without a camera or a shield.
If I, as a cabdriver, truly had a choice, I would choose a taxicab with a camera instead of one with a shield if it was an either/or question.
To be clear: I believe that almost all cabs should have both. The shield and camera shouldn't be regarded as competitors; they complement each other in the interest of tactical safety and combatting crime against cabdrivers.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Subject: Taxicab Safety
Name: Cub Fan and Bud Man
Date Posted: Sep 22, 08 - 8:37 PM
Message: Comment #1 from a post on cabmarket: "it seems that those drivers in other cities who have used cameras have found them to be a successful deterrent against crime".
Comment #2 from a post on cabmarket: "Numbers don't lie - in cities like Toronto and San Francisco where cameras were mandated, crimes against drivers have decreased."
I would like to see these "numbers" from other cities in relationship to their general crime rates: Chicago, Toronto and San Francisco.
Toronto has an official population of 2,503,281 (source: CBCA). Compare the murder RATE, for example, in all of Canada where “Police reported 594 homicides, down slightly from 606 in 2006. The homicide rate fell for the second year in a row, continuing a long-term decline that began in the mid-1970s."
Is this long term decline because of cameras? Is it because of shields? Are shield and cameras manufacturers just riding the public relations wave and misleading the public? Who knows!
"By the end of 2004, overall crime against Toronto taxi drivers had decreased by almost 65%." (Source: http://members.allstream.net/~ghmanley/positive.html) Any updates Mr. Manly?
Chicago Crime statistics:
With a poluation of 2,836,658: 416,299 crimes in the last 365 days, 295 were taxicab-related. (Sources: CPD Crime Summary, gis.chicagopolice.org & Every Block Chicago). Is there anything that suggests cameras are reducing crime against cab drivers? N. O.
San Francisco has an population of 764,976. (Source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/07/09/population_of_us_cities_2007)
San Francisco crime rate:
Almost all crimes reported in SF are higher than the national average! (Source: CityRating.com)
But according to San Francisco's recent Surveillance Camera Study (Source: www.aclunc.org):
"Surveillance Cameras are Not Solution"
These are the findings:
1) Studies from around the world have shown that surveillance cameras DO NOT prevent or reduce crime.
2) Surveillance cameras also DO NOT appear to be deterring crime in San Francisco communities.
3) Crime has INCREASED in more than half (8 of 15) of the locations where cameras have been installed.
The bottomed line: The city of Chicago is pushing cameras as a choice for OWNERS, NOT drivers for the smaller "green" cabs in which shields do not fit.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Cameras on a CTA bus identified a man who shot and killed a passenger this week.
I can't understand why anyone would object to the use of these cameras in CTA buses.
I don't understand how anyone objects to cameras being used in Chicago taxicabs in a similar manner.
Justice will be served and the truth will be known by the digital recordings.
May Kiyanna Salter rest in peace once her apparent killer, now being held without bond, is finally found guilty and punished severely for his crime.
Perhaps cabdriver Haroon Paryani would be alive today or his killer given a life- or death-sentence had a camera been recording the events in his cab on that fateful night.
The "7 cameras caught CTA bus killing" story by Annie Sweeney can be found in the Sun-Times on page 8 today.
I support installing these cameras in all taxis where violent crime and relative anonymity is prevalent. Almost anywhere and everywhere, especially the more densely populated urban and suburban areas.
-Mike Foulks
Cameras DO NOT -- DO NOT -- PREVENT CRIMES.
A camera may deter people like you and I from committing crimes, but they do not prevent guys like that shooter.
PERIOD. Get it?
"Myron",
Cameras DO DETER CRIMINALS. How little or how much will always be a matter of imperfect debate.
DETERRING CRIMINALS IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING AS PREVENTING A CRIME. NO CRIME = NO CRIME. Period.
I understand perfectly the differences between "deter" and "prevent".
In this case, the cameras were used to capture and publicly distribute images of the apparent shooter, compelling his mother to publicly confirm his identity and encourage him to turn himself in.
I "get it", "Myron".
What I "don't get", is your point. What is it?
Since the 7 CTA cameras didn't PREVENT this crime, only help the police and the public identify this criminal, leading to him turning himself in as his mother requested, thus taking an apparent killer off the streets...
...should the cameras be declared "uneffective at preventing crime" and be removed from CTA buses and trains?
Again, I don't see a point to your objection. What is it?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Cameras DO NOT -- DO NOT -- PREVENT CRIMES.
A camera may deter people like you and I from committing crimes, but they do not prevent guys like that shooter.
PERIOD. Get it?
You assuming this guy will never ever commit another crime?
Unless they lock the guy up for life, he may be back on the streets before you know it. He may commit crimes in jail.
With his mother involved, he may have case of wrongful conviction, if he is ever convicted.
He may get off easy and be back on the streets before you know it.
This is a world-wide phenomena. Cameras are everywhere.
Will we all behave because we are being watched?
Pretty soon they will be able to check to make sure you wiped your butt properly!
The authorities are so busy watching you, they don't have time to watch themselves:
Ottawa Police Lack Software To View Legally Mandated Taxi Videos
August 7, 2008
Topics police, software, city, camera, video, linda, images, sun, driver, law, men, videos and taxi
Almost all of Ottawa City's 1,100 taxicabs have complied with a law mandating the installation of video cameras in their vehicles. The goal of the requirement is to assist police in criminal investigations of crimes in taxicabs.
However, a technical glitch needs to be addressed. The city police do not have the software to allow them to view the videos.
On July 31, due to this problem, Ottawa police could not yet watch the video of a cab driver robbed by five men on Alta Vista Drive. Linda Anderson, Ottawa Enforcement and Inspections manager assured residents the software problem will be solved this week.
Anderson explained to the Ottawa Sun, "Those images will be on the camera forever... The police have their evidence, it's just a matter of getting the viewing software up and running."
Aug. 2 was the original deadline to install the cameras, however, the Ottawa police extended it to Aug. 14. The camera costs $1,000.
Meanwhile, following the City Council's approval in May, city hall staff are developing recommendations for the implementation of plans for a primary and secondary rapid transit network.
Here's the point:
Without the SEVEN cameras capturing this guy's criminal act of firing a handgun through the door of a moving CTA bus, killing a young, female passeneger...
...this guy would almost certainly be walking the streets of Chicago with his weaponry. Prone to commit yet another violent crime.
With the publicized images, EVEN HIS OWN MOTHER COULDN'T DENY THAT HE WAS THE GUY POLICE NEEDED TO CAPTURE! In fact, she helped by pleading for her son to do the right thing and turn himself in, which he did.
You seem to object to this tool being used to help identify and apprehend violent and deadly criminals in this manner, Myron, why is that?
Putting aside the cost of these cameras, I'm willing to wager that a majority of cabdrivers would prefer driving a cab with a camera than without one.
This has nothing to do with the partition. Cabs and cabdrivers can benefit from the installation and proper use of both a partition and a camera.
Right now, the apparent killer can't shoot anyone - he's probably in Divisions 8,9,10, or 11 in Cook County Jail - maximum security. He's destined for prison for a long time, possibly life, in my opinion.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
You assuming this guy will never ever commit another crime?
Unless they lock the guy up for life, he may be back on the streets before you know it. He may commit crimes in jail.
With his mother involved, he may have case of wrongful conviction, if he is ever convicted.
He may get off easy and be back on the streets before you know it.
What happens? When, you pick someone up at state and grand. They want to go to 63rd and stewart. The camera takes picture of that person. When, you get to place on southside. The person can kill right away. Then, steal, and break the camera in pieces. City will never know who killed you.
The city does not care who kills you when you are dead and buried so your rotting corpse don't smell up the cab. All they care about is using their power to force video cameras on cab owners.
The driver who pay lease pays for the camera when owner will charge more lease. The city will patrol and check cabs for camera violations to make more money from drivers. Is it safer to pay more fines from city for driver and owner if camera is off or broken.
Who is more dangerous to the drivers, all the thieves who rob cab drivers or the city?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
What happens? When, you pick someone up at state and grand. They want to go to 63rd and stewart. The camera takes picture of that person. When, you get to place on southside. The person can kill right away. Then, steal, and break the camera in pieces. City will never know who killed you.
"Steve",
The best cameras will transmit data to a central location for storage and retrieval, and be used in conjunction with GPS.
Criminals will indeed try to adapt to this new technology. Just because thieves figured out how to pick locks centuries ago, that doesn't stop us from using locks today - the point is, you use better locks.
There will be camera systems which will be useless or which will fail or be defeated. Those are bad camera systems. There will be superior camera systems which will be more successful and have tactical advantages as I've described. We should demand the use of superior systems.
But, if all cabdrivers want to do is ***** about something, then we will get inferior systems, much like we have now with our credit card regulations and processing.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
What happens? When, you pick someone up at state and grand. They want to go to 63rd and stewart. The camera takes picture of that person. When, you get to place on southside. The person can kill right away. Then, steal, and break the camera in pieces. City will never know who killed you.
Who is more dangerous to the drivers, all the thieves who rob cab drivers or the city?
Ed
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
"Steve",
The best cameras will transmit data to a central location for storage and retrieval, and be used in conjunction with GPS.
Criminals will indeed try to adapt to this new technology. Just because thieves figured out how to pick locks centuries ago, that doesn't stop us from using locks today - the point is, you use better locks.
There will be camera systems which will be useless or which will fail or be defeated. Those are bad camera systems. There will be superior camera systems which will be more successful and have tactical advantages as I've described. We should demand the use of superior systems.
But, if all cabdrivers want to do is ***** about something, then we will get inferior systems, much like we have now with our credit card regulations and processing.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
What happens? When, you pick someone up at state and grand. They want to go to 63rd and stewart. The camera takes picture of that person. When, you get to place on southside. The person can kill right away. Then, steal, and break the camera in pieces. City will never know who killed you.
