Cam catches thieves - makes me wish I bought better camera

[looney2ns]

From a low tech perspective... since the zombies are defeating the best of our efforts (camera tech, camera placement, procedural security, defensive lighting, or defensive no-lighting, etc.) with baggy, non-descriptive clothing, hoodies, bandanas, no automobiles and the youthful ability to scram asymmetrically like a cockroach... isn't a low tech solution the answer? There are a lot a very smart people on this forum who can think outside the box. Yes, throw $ at tech to deter, prevent, scare away or lead to the catch/arrest of SOME of the bad guys - but the uncatchable zombie door checker population is growing exponentially. From a military/tactical perspective zombie behavior is brilliantly low tech like a poor rebel fighter - blending in and then suddenly striking quickly. Moments later they're casual again - looking shady still - but not legally actionable. The time they strike is relatively predictable (2:00am - 3:00am). Isn't that a choke point in itself? Isn't that a weakness that can be exploited by the homeowners?
I know nobody wants to stay awake during those hours because they have work in the morning, but is there a way in a community (even on a street of 12 houses?) to share some responsibility with some type of visual patrol? There's probably a couple homeowners on any typical street that happen to be awake and capable of seeing zombies walking down the street at that hour. Unusual work schedule, retired, sleep deprived, etc. Isn't it worth putting flyers in your neighbor's mailboxes to at least ask the question? To see if they're interested in combining resources/effort? There's usually a gung ho person on the street who claims they'd shoot any person that touches their vehicle, but from a legal/financial perspective employing firearms on bad guys is an inconvenience. However, on any street there's normally a handful of highly capable people who are practiced in less lethal ways to apply kinetic solutions. They can run as fast or faster than the zombies, know the neighborhood better (side yards, back yards, adjoining streets/alleys), and when they lay their hands on the zombies' collar they can responsibly apply kinetics. The zombie doesn't know where that highly capable person lives and can't report the person to police. All it takes is a phone network.

It's called a neighborhood watch program. Lots of them being used successfully.

 

[RobertM]

Understood. Do ipcamtalk folks supplement their equipment with low tech as well?

 

[Kawboy12R]

Low, medium, and high velocity tech available for application here, repeat as required.

 

[randytsuch]

Does my killer, 10 pound poodle qualify as low tech? lol

 

[NoloC]

So to recap, We need a retired insomniac who can run as fast as any 16 year old, AND is a martial arts expert to "apply kinetics". So I am thinking we move to Chuck Norris's neighborhood. Or did I miss something?

 

[RobertM]

Lol! Door checker zombies are a tough nut to crack. 29 times out of 30 the car doors are locked - but zombies are persistent...

 

[Kawboy12R]

We must be lucky here, or our zombies are dumber. I'm at or a bit over 50% conviction rate for zombies/jerks/perps I've caught on my cams. Depends on what you call an offense, too. I don't really count public urination.

 

[Drew Taylor]

Just my law enforcement two cents. First off, I love this post, videos to show, lots of good feedback. Even if you are capturing just them in their hoodies, often these people are caught committing similar crimes even weeks or months later wearing the same items. They are often creatures of habit. So even if you get a great picture of a hoody with lets say, a logo such as under armor or such, if a suspect is produced and found later, this video can be very useful. We currently have a case where when the suspect was finally located, a particular item of clothing he had tied him to a ton of similar crimes.

 

[RobertM]

Drew, how often do you encounter situations where the homeowner physically apprehends (non lethal, no injuries) the suspects and holds them until LE arrives?

 

[Drew Taylor]

Drew, how often do you encounter situations where the homeowner physically apprehends (non lethal, no injuries) the suspects and holds them until LE arrives?

Very rare. And in todays society, your better off not if you can avoid it. At least in Ohio, you have the castle doctrine, but you also have the duty to retreat if possible, which means if you can remove yourself from the danger, you dont have as much right to protect yourself. So if you see someone outside your house doing something, go outside and encounter them, and then are forced to defend yourself, your looking at more trouble than its worth. Believe me, I dont like it either. I think property owners should be allowed to defend their home, family, and property.

 

[bigredfish]

Same here in the gunshine state. Its a slippery slope.

We teach our students that even with our enhanced Castle Doctrine and SYG laws (no duty to retreat) that while you are allowed to use force (but not deadly force) in the case of a robbery/burglary (Forcible Felony), things can still go bad if you are then forced to use deadly force when bad guy doesnt cooperate and becomes aggressive. Now your mindset and "intent" at the time come into play.

The Fla Statutes clearly give some cover, but we generally advise it's not worth the risk to protect property.

Fla Statutes on Use of Force- special attention to 776.031 and 776.08
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Different story if they illegally enter your home by force - See Statutes 776.12 and 776.13 - We have Presumption which is a very powerful protection to the innocent.

776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

 

[RobertM]

That rules out a homeowner executing a chase down and collar of a door checker. Can imagine tackling punk in a side yard and him pleading "Leave me alone!!" Then hmm, now what? Like getting upset at squirrels swinging on your bird feeder... pointless.