re: Two men attack 77 year old unprovoked in Seattle. Controversial cameras help make arrest

Apparently not the only unprovoked beating that happened in Seattle. Looking this up pulled a different story of basically the same thing.

quote:

---

A 33-year-old Seattle man is fighting for his life after his mother says a stranger repeatedly hit him in the head with a hammer in an unprovoked assault. Lisa Driscoll is calling for justice after her son, 33-year-old George Miller, was beaten repeatedly with a hammer just after midnight Monday outside the Renaissance Hotel. She says a stranger hit him in the head more than a dozen times. “It was an evil, brutal, unprovoked, horrific attack,” Driscoll said. “Someone who was reported to appear to be hunting to attack someone crossed over, took a hammer out of their backpack and started beating him over the head repeatedly.”

---

quote:

---

It prevents more than 3.

---

And yet only AFTER the third or more victim....it is a failing by any measure.


Lets take murder, for example. Heinous crime. Lets say its a drug dealer, gunning down the competition in a public park and accidentally hitting an innocent bystander in a public park. Its unlikely this crime would take place IF there was a police presence at the public park. Police have to eat, sleep, shite and go to the doctor....they can't be there 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Now consider a system of cameras....always on duty, never eating, sleeping, shitting or getting sick. That drug dealer would be forced to commit his crime in a private setting where its less likely to involve an innocent bystander. The camera does a better job of preventing the innocent bystander being killed....the three strike rule, in this instance, could, conceivably allow 3 innocent people to die before preventing the 4th. Its a simple matter of reality and math. It is not even close. Combine well trained investigatory police work with that system of cameras and the result is a massive reduction in crime that would make the 3 strike rule seem silly in comparison....


Given that we have the technology and it is cheaper than the alternative and far more effective yet we choose to stick with what we know does not work says, unequivocally, that policing is not about crime prevention but is instead about punishing criminals. Thats all fine and well, even if extremely backwards and archaic, but it is NUTS when you consider the POV of the crime victim....

Not interested in living in a surveillance state. As I add camera 8&9 to my house.

I don't think he is grasping the 3rd strike in this scenario is the perp being permanently removed from society, and not on a 50yr 3 squared and a cot on the taxpayer dime.

quote:

---

Seems to be Somalian

---

His shirt says “visit Rwanda” on the sleeve

There's something even more disturbing when people attack completely innocent people. It's one thing to have some kind of beef or get upset with someone you know, but to attack random people is a whole other level of violence that is even more concerning.

I don't think they should ever be released back into the public.

You prevent crime by removing criminals. I wonder how many crimes we could spot daily with cameras in the halls and offices of government officials monitored by citizens?

I already knew before watching. Feral animals.

more democrat violence on innocent people

quote:

---

Government is using fear to spy or invade privacy.

---

Not a business owner I assume.