Welcome to Aftermath, a portion of our First Line email newsletter where Attorney Anthony L. DeWitt walks you through a real-life self-defense incident and shares his key takeaways.
An Ohio couple had just returned from breakfast and were opening their driveway gate when they were approached and threatened by an armed man. While one of them called 911, the other, who was legally carrying a concealed pistol, exchanged gunfire with the assailant. Moments later, the homeowner’s ex-wife arrived, also armed, and began shooting, prompting further return fire. Both assailants died at the scene, while the couple was unharmed. Investigations revealed livestream cameras at the gate linked to the ex’s phone, as well as multiple IDs and evidence the attackers had traveled from another state, planning to ambush the Ohio couple. Ultimately, a grand jury declined to indict the defending couple.
**Which home security camera system do you use? What factors do you consider when deciding who to grant access to? **
Cameras are great… but they don’t work as prevention system in most cases.
Especially, in this case, the couple should be aware about the surroundings while opening the gate. Cameras don’t help here.
That was great that ex had access to the the cameras, so she was able to help.
My setup is simple - cameras covering front and back entrances plus video door phone with human detection and proximity alarm.
I live in very quiet and save Community so this system is more than I need… but you never know… Always be prepared for anything you can imagine that can happen to you.
The post as written by @USCCA is confusing. As I read it the ex-wife was working with the assailant, making her the 2nd assailant that died at the scene. If that is the case the ex-wife was there to help the 1st assailant, not the couple under attack.
I cautiously approach my driveway.
I scan to make sure no one’s hiding anywhere in or around the garage.
With a homeless encampment just a mile away across county lines, I’m not taking any chances.
(Can I say homeless now or is it still unhoused?)
I have a ring floodlight camera in front of the garage with a clear view of the street.
One night, local PD knocked to ask if I could share footage with them. It wasn’t plugged in yet at the time.
PD encourage people to sign up so they could have access to people’s systems. I’m on the fence about it.
I did not grant them access, I pulled up my device and looked at the (exterior) video, and the showed the recording to the officer.
Officer claimed our neighbors had somebody illegally enter their attached garage, act weird/threatening, and then flee down the street, they were hoping for video description and direction of travel. I saw matching activity in my recording and showed them the recording.
But that was a short exterior recording shared on a device I was holding and controlling.
For that…I think it’s great.
For others have actual access to just go in and view stuff…not a fan.
But these days we should just assume we are on camera whenever we are in public…and I hope most are privately owned and only shared on a limited basis when situation warrants…like I did there, or business surveillance that has to be physically pulled by detectives going to the business, private vehicle dash cameras, etc
If it’s anything like what I’ve been considering of buying, it goes live when triggered, like a motion sensor. Or, could be activated remotely like what the ex did.
The case I was a juror on the prosecution used Ring Doorbell Cameras a lot, from 5-6 different houses, some with sound, we heard the yelling, we heard/saw the shots. The main outcome was, they made the witness testimony look stupid. Not a single witness told the same story the videos did.
I would fall off that fence and not toward PD access. I know most public activity is monitored now-a-days, but I definity don’t want 24/7 police monitoring of everything I do on my property - and that has nothing to do with it being illegal or otherwise.
The cameras used by the assailants were theirs, not the victims. Access to the victims cameras, if there were any, was not the issue in this incident. That took quite awhile to find that story. The incident occurred 2/12/2020. @Nathan57, yes, the ex-wife and her husband were the assailants.
More and more, stalkers and bad actors seem to be using technology to track their victim’s movements. Between things like the ex placing cameras at her ex’s home, to rapists planting those apple GPS trackers in victim’s cars and bags, it’s pretty disturbing. As we always say on here, watch your six, head on a swivel, always, always be armed and ready, and train, practice and practice some more. It’s these kind of personal, planned attacks that are so disturbing and prove that even if you live in a low crime area, evil can come looking for you.
I’m glad for the good outcome here. This belongs linked to the FAFO thread.
There have been a few times I was asked if I could check my cameras for the police. Which I have never had a problem doing. Be glad to help, but I’m not giving anyone unfettered access to my security system.
Cameras are great for post-crime investigation. But I’m waiting for the deluxe detection system that will also apprehend the intruder and dispose of the body… (remember: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away…)
)