what in your opinion constitutes misues of CCTV

[Numb-nuts 1]

what in your opinion constitutes misuse of CCTV?

 

I think the number one issue in my experience is attempt to entrap offenders in the act,

where no attempt is made to deter them from criminal behavior.

 

Another might be covert cameras for the purposes of voyeurism. I think we can all imagine

that one without having to specifically spell it out.

 

Any thoughts?

[Don Stephens 0]

I think the number one issue in my experience is attempt to entrap offenders in the act, where no attempt is made to deter them from criminal behavior.

 

It'd be very hard for me to sympathize with the person who gets caught here. I don't have "Please don't rob me" signs all over my house. Does that mean I'm solely responsible when someone breaks into my home?

[mgb 0]

I agree with Don here.

I don't see it as entrapment.

So lets say I have a store and there's a corner I can't see from the counter. I have merchandise in that corner and a camera that focuses on the merchandise in that area.

Someone comes in and doesn't see the camera. They steal some merchandise. Is that entrapment? The people that go in that corner know that they're not supposed to steal.

[tomcctv 190]

Lots of employment types ..... Police officer .. Office worker .. Construction ... Armed forces and a. CRIMINAL.

 

each one is to work for a living most are honest except the criminal. It's a trade to them

 

They will alway be a criminal if a good living can be made from it

[Numb-nuts 1]

I agree with Don here.

I don't see it as entrapment.

So lets say I have a store and there's a corner I can't see from the counter. I have merchandise in that corner and a camera that focuses on the merchandise in that area.

Someone comes in and doesn't see the camera. They steal some merchandise. Is that entrapment? The people that go in that corner know that they're not supposed to steal.

 

I know you aren't trying to get someone to steal and "I didn't see the camera Me Lud" is no defense but frankly unless you make an effort to deter the potential thief it could be said to be a trap set to entice any would be thief for the purpose of making and example of them. There is a good reason that many jurisdiction demand businesses display warning signs, and that is to protect the innocent businessman who id protecting his/her goods and not for the sake of human rights.

 

The law recognizes that a lawyer's first duty is to use any legal means to defend their client, NOT to see justice done, that is the duty of the prosecutor and the system itself. (judge and Jury) IF a defense lawyer can cast doubt into the mind or the J&J then they must give that doubt to the accused and if it can be suggested that entrapment is a possibility the defendant could get off on a mere suggestion of entrapment. The law does not want that to happen. They want to allow CCTV evidence in court but unfortunately even crims have rights too. Its absolutely necessary in our society to ensure that so far as is possible justice is served and miscarriage of justice is avoided. I heard it said better to have ten criminals get off on a technicality rather than wrongly convict one innocent man.

I think they call these checks and balances.

 

And it's not what you consider to be entrapment that counts it's the proof that there was no entrapment that will count. I doubt they would bring charges for entrapment charges except in very unusual circunstances anyway but the suggestion that cannot be refuted absolutely is a doubt and thats all it takes.

 

Not perfect I grant you that but it's as close as it's possible to get.

[Boogieman 1]

Sorry numb-nuts but you have no idea what entrapment is and your comment makes zero sense.

[Don Stephens 0]

This came from another forum:

 

Sec. 8.06. ENTRAPMENT. (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offense. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment.

 

 

While nothing you may be thinking of is technically entrapment, there are certain situations where it might just be a sh**ty thing to do. For instance, the above statement was posted in reference to "bait cars."

[mgb 0]

This came from another forum:

 

Sec. 8.06. ENTRAPMENT. (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offense. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment.

 

 

While nothing you may be thinking of is technically entrapment, there are certain situations where it might just be a sh**ty thing to do. For instance, the above statement was posted in reference to "bait cars."

 

Yes, that right there,

Things like bait cars and blatant setups are kinda crappy

[tomcctv 190]

Don't see we're a jury comes into it

 

 

Before it gets to court it is first desided if any wrong doing has taken place which is when cctv (information collection) shows it has.

So long as shop or office has all the licence to collect information from its cctv

[Numb-nuts 1]

Sorry numb-nuts but you have no idea what entrapment is and your comment makes zero sense.

 

Thanks so much.