Started this as a new thread as the last one is several months old. The Armed Attorneys posted a video on use of home security cameras that I am sure will stoke a good conversation.
Without watching it, this reminds me of their “stop training” video, which I 100% disagree with in every possible manner.
Kind of seems like their flavor of a click bait title, but maybe I’m wrong, if I watch it, I’ll let you know if that changes my knee jerk reaction.
I will continue to have cameras outside my home and dash cameras front and rear in our vehicles.
I have both faith in my self and an acceptance of responsibility for any action I take in those public spaces and would rather risk being on my own camera doing something less than perfect, vs a he said she said disagreement in which the other side flat out lies about everything and I have no evidence to the contrary
They did not say not to have cameras, but be wary of just handing over video to the police as it might not show what you stated to police happened, thereby impugning you (aka you are lying). They made clear, just as with anything else, if the police are aware of the video’s existence, to only provide it after a warrant is issued for it.
The other point was only provide it to the police after your lawyer views it and only if it aids your defense. If it shows something other than what you stated to police, not to turn it over to the police unless the police issue a warrant for it.
Their explanation was that cameras might not be the best arbitors of the “truth” due to camera angles, frame rates, etc. Cameras might not record things that you saw, or it can record things that you did not observe, especially at night with infrared lenses.
That makes more sense and sounds like fantastic advice to me (not that I’m a lawyer). Seems they just had to click bait up the title with “stop recording” because, seemingly, everybody putting out any content anywhere these days needs a click bait or person-over-acting-a-huge-reaction-face title to attack views
Similar to you will cooperate 100% but first you need your attorney, do not talk further without your lawyer present…hold that footage until it goes through your lawyer and/or they seize it with a warrant
- Cameras do not track your eyes and see what you are looking at. The camera catches more with low light situation.
- Cameras do not catch subtle threats or indications a person may perceive.
- A Cameras perspective is different than your observations.
- Cameras only catch two dimensions.
- Cameras make the jury second guess you.
- Cameras have taken over the investigating.
Summing up the video.
This was on my security camera a month or so ago. Obviously left overs from the last ice age bent on eating my wife’s garden and leaving massive droppings along the way.
Should I have confronted them with a firearm or, a sharped rock on a stick?
Should have been grilling some steaks about now.
The Armed Attorneys channel has been warning us for a long time about EVERYTHING.
Everything can be always used against you, the thing is you must be smart and figure it out what and how to use and if the information provided actually matches up with your words.
Looks like they could use some food, instead.
Pretty much this, everything can be used against you. Hell, not having camera footage could be used against you. So could not having training. Or the lies told that are so blatant the charges would be immediately dropped if there was even a short low-quality video. Having a spare magazine could be used against you. Carrying two knives could be used against you. Carrying a gun in the first place could be used against you.
The fact that literally everything could potentially be used against you is no reason to, well…you can’t avoid literally everything because even that avoidance is itself still a thing.
That’s a thinker