rise up Rochester - Latest Comments in Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

virgin mary statues — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:50:41 -0000

Alicia i agree. Im from Germany and here it is the same

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Andrew S. — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:42:17 -0000

I just realized that the bank that was robbed on Monroe yesterday, besides having dozens of it's own cameras, had TWO Rochester surveillance cameras at that intersection which could see the entrance of the bank.

Perhaps someone can explain to me how they helped to deter crime in this situation?

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Nicole — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:01:11 -0000

Yes I would, maybe I'll even write about this whole right to bear arms issue.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Nicole — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:44:29 -0000

Additionally, do you understand though, that even if we had a "list" of people that were the only ones who could own a gun, that the people who are committing crimes with guns are still going to have access to the same gun supply that they had before, as most of the people committing crimes with guns are obtaining those guns illegally. So, like I stated before, the criminals will still have their guns, but us law abiding citizens will not have the protection we deserve/desire.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Andrew S. — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:32:35 -0000

Nicole, would you like to become a contributor on the site? You could start posting articles almost immediately. I believe Ryan is considering becoming one.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Nicole — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:30:02 -0000

There are several layers to my belief: personal protection at a community level and protection from the government in the event that I needed it. Unlikely or not, if history teaches us anything...

But you're right, since YOU feel personally incapable of protecting yourself, the right to own a gun should be taken away from the rest of us and only given to a list of people deemed deserving of the right.

Unlike you, I do not want to place my fate in the hands of others. This is a right that our founding fathers believed we should have and I am in full agreement with them.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Andrew S. — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:10:55 -0000

Also, the police, store owners and military did a great job of protecting the "people" in WWII Germany, USSR, US, etc.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Andrew S. — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:09:00 -0000

You should acknowledge that you disagree with the founding fathers. They were clear with their intentions. No one doubted why the 2nd Amendment was included at the time.

http://www.lizmichael.com/f...

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathe...

http://www.fdrs.org/foundin...

There really is no debate here as their intentions are well documented. George Washington even stated that sports were a waste of time and young men should be taught how to shoot a gun instead.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ryan_W — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:03:10 -0000

So you're positing that in the unlikely even the US Army were to start persecuting American citizens, that you think American citizens would be able to defend themselves and win?

Our country has the second largest active military in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... and is probably the best funded, best trained army in the world. No offense, but do you really think average citizens, armed with whatever would stand a chance?

I fully support gun ownership by small at risk businesses. If smaller, vulnerable stores aren't armed I think they should be. Why? I only really endorse gun ownership for those who have strong incentives to keep me alive: police, store owners, military personnel. None of these people could benefit by killing me.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Nicole — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:37:55 -0000

I'm sure when they see your comment about the Boston Creme Pie and wiping up someone's blood off the floor they will thoroughly understand.

The arguments against your opinion were clear and consise, then your comments became sick and twisted - there is no need to continue a debate with someone who, once unable to continue their side of the argument, responds with nasty semantics. It appears all the contributors welcome debates, just not the kind of childish debates you want to have.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Andrew S. — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:36:11 -0000

Not to mention a huge run-around and wait periods that can extend to over a year. The justification for a wait period (I've been told) is to allow for a cooling down period. Hypothetically, someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, but since they have to wait a year to obtain one legally, they become discouraged and think better of it. However, the reverse is also true. Someone could become concerned for their own safety and wish to obtain a handgun to defend themselves. The waiting period prevents this person from protecting themselves with a gun for over a year, giving anyone that wishes to do that person harm ample time to hurt them.

Going with the "people kill people" vs. "guns kill people" theory, I'd say it's the criminals that are advantaged in this type of system.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Andrew S. — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:13:12 -0000

Thank you, Nicole. That's all I've ever been trying to say here.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Nicole — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:10:39 -0000

Ryan,

I'm trying to understand you; is it your belief that we should not have the right to own firearms?

I can assure you that if our right to firearms is taken away, those committing crimes with these firearms will still have firearms; it will be those of us who are law abiding citizens that will no longer have the option to protect ourselves. One of the first things that Hitler did when he rose to power was take away the people's right to own firearms. Therefore, he took away the people's right to protect themselves. They had to rely on the Nazi regime to protect them, and as history shows us, that did not work out well for a lot of people. This is definitely not the direction I want our society to go in.

Why do you believe that most store owners are armed? I am a social worker within the community of Rochester and can say with much confidence that most store owners are not armed.

It appears that your mentality is of the "guns kill people" belief. I, on the other hand, am of the "people kill people" belief. There are a variety of ways that a "delinquent or mentally unstable" person could hurt someone, having the right to firearms as a society does make that any more likely.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ryan_W — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 14:03:15 -0000

Oh, and by the way I didn't wet my pants down at Mark's Texas Hots, I just left. I never actually saw the gun, my friend did. How? Well, I asked him again about it, it wasn't concealed, it was out on his lap in his hand. I left because I trusted my friend's judgement, not because I had seen it for myself. Now what would you have done?

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ryan_W — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:57:37 -0000

Your argument completely falls apart, don't most corner type stores in the city have armed cashiers? I'd argue you'd have to be a pretty stupid proprietor to not have some sort of protection. Surprisingly, these places still somehow get robbed.

Your argument for arming the general population falls apart too. While I can be fairly certain a store owner won't shoot me (if he wants me to buy his goods) I can't be certain delinquent or mentally unstable people would. How many times have you seen a bar fight by stupid people who are drunk or overly emotional? Now imagine if each time this happened they brought out guns instead of pummeling each other with their fists? This isn't the society I want to live in.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

DAISY_YANG — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 12:27:28 -0000

PENISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

DAISY_YANG — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 02:29:50 -0000

Free speech may not be dead in America, but it sure is on riseupRochester.org. My comments on the board that is lamenting the death of free speech are being censored for being different than that of the moderator. I'm going to submit my thoughts on this subject (and on what is clearly a sham of a website in general) to the D&C, and get their opinion...

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

DAISY_YANG — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 02:28:59 -0000

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Common__Sense — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 04:12:25 -0000

"Poverty is the cause of crime, not the opportunity to get away with it."

Frankly, I'd say both were. IE. If you left me 100 gold bars outside of my house and clearly marked it as yours, by night fall, I will transport these bars inside my house and remark them as mine. I'm not poor, but I will certain take advantage of you.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ryan — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:53:10 -0000

Yep, I am telling you that. Our law has to presume innocence, but I don't. Should I have gone up and asked him if he had a permit? Maybe I could have asked him at the same time if he planned to rob the place, or shoot an innocent bystander or shoot me (hey I may have had my ipod on me)?

Its a Felony to have an unregistered handgun, why? Registration is required to ensure that you haven't already committed violent crimes. I think we can both agree that selling firearms to convicts isn't a good idea.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Andrew S. — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:12:04 -0000

Believe it or not, carrying a concealed weapon isn't a crime. You do have to get a permit (which violates the 2nd Amendment - permits are for something that's otherwise illegal). So you're telling me you'll wet your pants when you see a citizen with a gun, but you just love it when it's some guy in uniform, be it black or blue? AGAIN Ryan, do I have to remind you that tyranny comes to your door in a uniform? Hell, I'd sure carry a gun to Mark's if I had a permit. The more these criminals know our city isn't a victim disarmament zone, the less they're going to pull this stuff.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ryan — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:43:09 -0000

All I can say is apparently I haven't learned my lesson. This past weekend I went to Mark's Texas Hots around 9pm with a friend. As we were finishing our meal my friend noticed a guy who at just come in standing by the counter with a handgun concealed on his person. We got out of there as fast as we could. I didn't see anything on the news about a shooting, but regardless it was quite disconcerting.

If I feel unsafe grabbing a hot dog in the city, how safe would I feel living or working in the city? A lot of people I've talked to who worked in the city through the sixties claimed the violence associated with the race riots as a main reason for leaving the city. Crime isn't just deterring suburbanites, its deterring many people who would potentially want to live and work in the city. I for one would love to live in an area where I wouldn't need a car.

Check out James Slater's case:

http://www.rnews.com/print....

Amazingly, they've convicted the two guys of robbing him at gunpoint, but they've both been acquitted of murder. WTF? The jury cited difficulties in the credibility of the main witness (who was the other guy in the robbery). If video had recorded this would there be any question? If the robbers knew they were being filmed, would the have shot and killed the guy over an ipod and two cell phones in the first place?

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Andrew S. — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:28:36 -0000

I agree Alicia. We can't take a crime that is admitted to be a random act of violence and use it to justify radically altering our society. Your points about feeling safe hit on another point --- it's not the job of the RPD to make sure that the city is catering to the will of the suburbanites. Is it a consideration? Absolutely. But should the city compromise the will of it's residents to meet the will of people that feel that the city is just their spot to hang out? No.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Alicia — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:28:07 -0000

Paul--

I actually didn't see your comment before I posted mine, since I was only looking at the first page, but I think your points here are excellent.

What I don't like is your connection to conspiracies and "nuts." Obviously I would never wish to censor anyone's comments, but I think your connection to those who take in part in so-called "conspiracy theories" and mental illness, which may not be intentional, is a little inappropriate.

People with differing view points are constantly being marginalized using terms like "nut job" to discredit them; that term lends to an assumption that anyone with viewpoints that you do not find to be credible is mentally ill or has some mental impairment that makes their judgment on things off. If you are trying to promote debate, just do it sensibly, there is no need for ridiculous name calling...

Not to get off-topic either, and keep in mind I don't know where exactly I stand on the issue of 9/11, but people who believe it is an inside job are out there taking action. We Are Change, for example does a heck of a lot. But then you criticize them for being nuts anyway...

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Alicia — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:20:09 -0000

I have been pretty quiet for a while now but I might have a little bit to contribute to this discussion.

I am a lifelong resident of the City of the Rochester and I feel uncomfortable with the idea of mass policing and surveillance cameras. Crimes do happen when people have the opportunity, but I really don't see any point in having police cameras everywhere since no one would ideally plan to kill someone in front of one. Perhaps there is some correlation to smaller crimes, but I don't know that these cameras will actually affect murders.

I actually spoke with a city councilman not too long ago who conveyed to me a sense that people have agreed to these cameras as part of an initiative to deter crime, but they cannot be permanently funded and sustained. He agreed that the use of data was a potential problem, and that many people have expressed concern about it. We also discussed how a free society could not be watched 24 hours a day; people themselves have to decide not to take someone else's life. Governments can't stop people from killing one another, yet the social, economic and political climate of this country has been one cause leading to violence and other crime. Can we prove that these cameras catch the actual murderers?

Is your reason for wanting police cameras, Ryan, that you personally want to be safe when you venture into the city to grab a hot dog or hang out in the East End? I suppose I understand that not feeling safe is a deterrent to hanging out in a city, but I don't feel my life is threatened...What do you think is the psychological impact on actual city residents, both "law abiding" and criminals?

I don't know that more police around or cameras could have prevented that shooting at Mark's Hots either. I also don't feel any less safe going there, because I don't tie that crime (albeit horrible and senseless) to Mark's. It could happen anywhere. You could be standing in line at a bank and someone could come in and shoot everyone.

However, I do think that police presence out on the streets in areas like Monroe and East Ave where there are bars is completely reasonable...there's probable cause that someone would get into trouble in that case.
NPR had an interesting little segment regarding some of the pros and cons to surveillance cameras in London. I think I've read some stuff on how the crime rate in London hasn't really budged much despite the cameras and this brief clip mentions that

http://www.npr.org/template...

I just think that we are too willing to try and patch up problems instead of addressing the roots causes of most crime. That's why I'm against it.