Man filmed literally stealing iPad from under buyer's nose

[mat200]

Man filmed literally stealing iPad from under buyer's nose

Houston Chronicle
Published on Dec 6, 2018


update:
Lesson: Mo Cameras, Mo Cameras. Need more cameras.

Yourself / wife / husband / SO thinks one camera is enough, ask: "Did you get a good enough ID on the thief? the thief's truck"?

Also note - there's a chance that this video can get thrown out of court as evidence due to no embedded time stamp, it will depend on the defense attorney and judge. Had they another video capture with an embedded time stamp supporting this Ring video capture it would be hard to argue to throw it out.

 

[gwminor48]

Incredible!

 

[wtimothyholman]

I have to wonder if the perps actually followed the owner home from the Apple store. No wonder the victim kept looking around; he knew something was up.

 

[c hris527]

If you choose that field of work(stealing) then you better be efficient at it, This Guy was.

 

[fenderman]

Ballsy has hell.

 

[RobertM]

That's unfortunate and very basic. To that criminal - that older gent was nothing more than a limping gazelle. Criminal could have inflicted grave bodily harm EASILY.

 

[looney2ns]

Situational awareness. Most people severely lack it.

 

[crw030]

That blows my mind how quickly that crime transpired end to end. I wonder if he caught the license plate (a good camera in the parking lot would have got color, make/model and plate in all probability), combined with reasonably good clothing and face images if the police could track the perp down. Thank god the fella didn't get hurt, the crime was pretty much over before his brain processed the footsteps approaching and he turned to see what was happening.

Reasonably strong argument for RING there, I mean if you didn't have the information here, that's pretty convincing video quality that close up.

 

[mat200]

That blows my mind how quickly that crime transpired end to end. I wonder if he caught the license plate (a good camera in the parking lot would have got color, make/model and plate in all probability), combined with reasonably good clothing and face images if the police could track the perp down. Thank god the fella didn't get hurt, the crime was pretty much over before his brain processed the footsteps approaching and he turned to see what was happening.

Reasonably strong argument for RING there, I mean if you didn't have the information here, that's pretty convincing video quality that close up.

@crw030

I believe the concept of having anyone walking up to the front door having to go through a minimum of 2 camera zones which are mounted well enough to have a chance at a good facial ID image capture is critical. Videos like this just re-enforce my belief of "over camera-ing" ( WAF approved term ).

These videos are really key to show people so they can accept that one camera by itself may not be enough to capture the information you want or need.

Also note - there's a chance that this video can get thrown out of court due to no embedded time stamp, it will depend on the defense attorney and judge. Had they another video capture with an embedded time stamp supporting this Ring video capture it would be hard to argue to throw it out.

 

[wtimothyholman]

Reasonably strong argument for RING there, I mean if you didn't have the information here, that's pretty convincing video quality that close up.

It's an argument for Ring, but that video alone won't get his property back.

I'm a big proponent of installing just one camera - any camera - over having no camera at all. But let's face it - the probability of the cops doing anything based on that Ring video approaches zero. What do they really have to work with? A partial description of one of the perps, and a rough description of a vehicle, is all. The chances of a detective devoting more than five minutes to this crime is almost nil.

@mat200's comment on having multiple camera zones is spot on. I will also say that once you put up a couple of LPR cameras, you'll wonder why you didn't do it ages ago. Having the license plate of the perp's vehicle might get some action on the part of the police. But the Ring video by itself will not.

A brief anecdote: I have multiple cameras monitoring the perimeter around my house. Four cameras are devoted to the street in front of my home (two for LPR), with another camera on the front porch. Before I put up those cameras, it was a common event for door-checkers to hit my block. Yet in the months since I installed them, we've had only one door checker try my car. I posted images on NextDoor that showed the tattoos on his arms, and the brand of backpack and shoes he was wearing. The cops caught him a week later, breaking into cars about a mile from my house, and he's currently serving time in prison. Since then, there's been nothing.

My neighbors and I have commented on this. Is it just coincidence, or is there more to it? Do the door checkers make a daytime reconnaissance before hitting a street at night? Do they see my very visible array of cameras, and decide to steer clear of my house, and my street block? It's difficult to say, but I can't say I'm unhappy with the reduction in attempted burglaries, regardless of the reason.

A multi-camera security array is worth the money and effort it takes to set it up. I would bet you that if the perps in that vehicle had seen two or three cameras pointing in their direction when they pulled up, they would have driven on.

 

[handinpalm]

The whole video seems pretty fishy to me. Looks like it is staged. For the dumb ass news media to spread it around.

 

[pal251]

Man filmed literally stealing iPad from under buyer's nose

Houston Chronicle
Published on Dec 6, 2018


update:
Lesson: Mo Cameras, Mo Cameras. Need more cameras.

Yourself / wife / husband / SO thinks one camera is enough, ask: "Did you get a good enough ID on the thief? the thief's truck"?

Also note - there's a chance that this video can get thrown out of court as evidence due to no embedded time stamp, it will depend on the defense attorney and judge. Had they another video capture with an embedded time stamp supporting this Ring video capture it would be hard to argue to throw it out.

Had many theft cases prosecuted in my area and never heard that defense. Believe me the defense atty will look at more important things to them.

 

[mat200]

Had many theft cases prosecuted in my area and never heard that defense. Believe me the defense atty will look at more important things to them.

HI @pal251

Let me fix that for you, here's a first hand account:

"Just something to consider when using this. I juat had my Arlo security footage thrown out of court because the other sides lawyer said it didn't have an embedded time stamp and there was no way to know the actual time. There is literally no option to include a time stamp in the video and they only have the epoch time as the file name. This was for a landlord-tenant dispute where the tenants guest destroyed my property. "
Slickdeals: The Best Deals, Coupons, Promo Codes & Discounts

QED

 

[tangent]

HI @pal251

Let me fix that for you, here's a first hand account:

"Just something to consider when using this. I juat had my Arlo security footage thrown out of court because the other sides lawyer said it didn't have an embedded time stamp and there was no way to know the actual time. There is literally no option to include a time stamp in the video and they only have the epoch time as the file name. This was for a landlord-tenant dispute where the tenants guest destroyed my property. "
Slickdeals: The Best Deals, Coupons, Promo Codes & Discounts

QED

I bet you could subpoena ring/arlo and get something authoritative regarding the time the video was taken. I'm not disputing that there could be issues, but a time stamp in the video could just as easily be wrong or even deliberately set wrong.

 

[mat200]

I bet you could subpoena ring/arlo and get something authoritative regarding the time the video was taken. I'm not disputing that there could be issues, but a time stamp in the video could just as easily be wrong or even deliberately set wrong.

Hi Tanget,

Yes, you certainly can submit a subpoena to ring / arlo / nest / blinky - however by the time they receive and process it your video clips may already have been deleted. Still the way they have it setup it is more likely to be tossed as evidence than a system which has the time stamp embedded.

Yes, the embedded time stamp can be wrong - and that has been another case for CCTV video being tossed as evidence from some legal notes I have seen. In fact one of the issues with NVR / DVRs is day light saving time can throw off the video time stamp by 1 hour if the system is not designed to take that into account - and there are cases where the judge has allowed evidence like that to be tossed out. Remember this is highly dependent on the judge as well as the defense lawyers deciding the issue. Best we can do is increase the chances of a successful capture of useful evidence.