I disagree with "Security cameras and systems are an effective deterrent". I have seen too many crimes on video recordings! Many times criminals are not that smart! Either they are wearing a hoodie, a full face mask or other disguise or simply don't care! Sometimes they don't even realize there are cameras in the area - but lighting conditions are poor.
Security cameras simply catch the act on video - they are not really a deterrent. A woman can get raped and the act captured, but she still got raped! Will the criminal get caught and convicted because of that video? - - Probably not. I had business for many years, had break in's, cars crash into my buildings, items stolen, etc. Each and every time the police reviewed the video I was told, "sorry sir, the video isn't really clear, there are no face on shots, not decisive enough, etc." and have proved to be completely useless in solving the crime. How many times a week (on the news) do we see stores being robbed, people being shot, windows being smashed, criminals beating the **** out of elderly folks, - video's don't stop that and IMHO are at best only a deterrent to a very minor degree. Few have been punished!
Yes, I have always had video cameras - still do, but their presence is marginal at best and have proven to me many times to be mostly useless. Still better than nothing I suppose as there might be that a handful of criminals might shy away. That said, I suppose there could be some minor value - if nothing else, to see who is ringing your doorbell.
NOTE: Sometimes a video can capture someone defending themselves with a firearm, knife or other weapon and that can actually be used against the innocent victim. Hmmmm.
There are down sides to everything.
You remind me of the folks who tried to claim seat belts were dangerous because the could trap you in a burning vehicle. They'd cite one of the far left hand tail examples where an unbelted individual was thrown clear of a wreck while the belted individual died, and then claim that 1 in a 1000 fluke occurrence proved their case.
Same thing with motor cycle riders and helmets. Yes, some riders wearing improperly designed or improperly worn helmets managed to break their necks in accidents where they might not have without a helmet. But again they ignore the 99.9% of people who both don't break their necks and avoid a TBI.
As a VR Counselor and tax payer it annoyed me to no end when a motorcycle rider adamant on asserting his "right" to ride without a helmet would later come in with a traumatic brain injury after a motor cycle accident and want me to use tax dollars to rehabilitate him so he could go back to work. Nothing like paying tax dollars for an avoidable injury acquired by someone in the "but mah rights!" crowd. It seems some folks are against bellying up to the public trough, until their irresponsible actions make it advantageous, then they are first in line.
Re read my post and consider the meaning of the word "deterrence". No, security cameras and security systems won't prevent everything, and they won't do much good in deterring a criminal too clueless to notice them before hand.
But competent criminals will notice them - and target another home.
Even with incompetent criminals the video captured does make it easier to apprehend the criminal afterwards. While it might not help you or your as victims, it will help get the criminal off the street and prevent future crimes with future victims.
Finally, at no point did I suggest or state that security cameras and security systems should be your only layer of deterrence or defense:
- Fences;
- good exterior lighting;
- trimming or removing shrubs that might provide concealment for a thief trying to enter your home;
- a scary sounding and or looking dog;
- a self defense firearm;
- self defense training;
- pre planning and preparation;
- being smart about posting on social media;
-etc, etc, etc.
They all add to the total package.
And finally, show me a case where an armed citizen defended himself or herself fully with his or her rights under the law and was successfully prosecuted because of his or her own security camera video. If you can find a case at all it will be one of those left hand tail 1 in 1000 cases that ignore the other 99.9% of cases where the video supports the armed citizen's claim that lethal force was justified as self defense.
