2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Glasser on September 22, 2021, 06:54:12 PM
-
http://preview.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/22/there_are_far_more_defensive_gun_uses_than_murders_in_america_heres_why_you_rarely_hear_of_them_794461.html?mc_cid=159140952c&mc_eid=d0a6218c4d
-
Nice. Science prevales.
-
Nice. Science prevales.
3.7 in phonics...
-
Nice. Science prevales.
Your view of science is on par with your spelling ("prevales").
Science has nothing to do with it. Even the article says "according to academic estimates."
There are many research efforts, including the work Lott does. The word "research" is not a synonym for "science". If it were, everyone who uses Google is a scientist conducting research.
-
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
Guns save lives.
I can't tell my stories as
Democrats could use use Prosecutorial (sp?)
discretion.
Shoot, shovel, Shut up.
:thumbsup:
-
I have no doubt defensive firearm use is vastly underreported and under covered by the media but I keep running into questions on how the surveys are measuring whether a firearm had a role in an incident.
Some could be very clear, like a robber walks up demanding money and the victim points a gun at the robber and he runs away or gets shot but are all so clear? Are the surveys merely asking people if they used a gun defensively or are they evaluating the reports? If a survey question leaves too much open for interpretation then you can end up with skewed results because of subjective answers. So for example if I worked in a convenience store and a sketchy looking guy walked in eyeballing me but then saw the gun on my waiste and left. Would that count as a defensive firearm use?
I also wonder whether people are answering accurately, since this is a hot button issue, a firearm rights advocate might lie and say they used a firearm defensively just to make a better argument for their position on the issue.
-
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
Guns save lives.
I can't tell my stories as
Democrats could use use Prosecutorial (sp?)
discretion.
Shoot, shovel, Shut up.
:thumbsup:
Only if they can prove jurisdiction and that it was within the statute of limitations ;)
-
I have no doubt defensive firearm use is vastly underreported and under covered by the media but I keep running into questions on how the surveys are measuring whether a firearm had a role in an incident.
Some could be very clear, like a robber walks up demanding money and the victim points a gun at the robber and he runs away or gets shot but are all so clear? Are the surveys merely asking people if they used a gun defensively or are they evaluating the reports? If a survey question leaves too much open for interpretation then you can end up with skewed results because of subjective answers. So for example if I worked in a convenience store and a sketchy looking guy walked in eyeballing me but then saw the gun on my waiste and left. Would that count as a defensive firearm use?
I also wonder whether people are answering accurately, since this is a hot button issue, a firearm rights advocate might lie and say they used a firearm defensively just to make a better argument for their position on the issue.
This is why the CDC estimate is so huge. 500k-1 million times a year.
My ccw instructor told us a story from a student. She works retail and finishes late and alone. Employee parking lot is in a dark isolated area. Shes packing. A group of guys approached her in that lot. She was the only car there and its fenced off. So they were not passing thru. As they got closer (10 feet), she reached into her waistband. This caused them all to pause and turn around and walk away. She called the police and they caught the guys. But because no law was broken, no report made. They just warned the group how lucky they are because she is armed.
So this is 1 instance of no paper trail.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
This is why the CDC estimate is so huge. 500k-1 million times a year.
My ccw instructor told us a story from a student. She works retail and finishes late and alone. Employee parking lot is in a dark isolated area. Shes packing. A group of guys approached her in that lot. She was the only car there and its fenced off. So they were not passing thru. As they got closer (10 feet), she reached into her waistband. This caused them all to pause and turn around and walk away. She called the police and they caught the guys. But because no law was broken, no report made. They just warned the group how lucky they are because she is armed.
So this is 1 instance of no paper trail.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
A perfect example. Now we can all imagine this situation and assume these guys had bad intentions but an objective question would be to ask whether they were really going to commit a crime or not. Were they going to attack her or jerks trying to hit on her?
-
I have no doubt defensive firearm use is vastly underreported and under covered by the media but I keep running into questions on how the surveys are measuring whether a firearm had a role in an incident.
Some could be very clear, like a robber walks up demanding money and the victim points a gun at the robber and he runs away or gets shot but are all so clear? Are the surveys merely asking people if they used a gun defensively or are they evaluating the reports? If a survey question leaves too much open for interpretation then you can end up with skewed results because of subjective answers. So for example if I worked in a convenience store and a sketchy looking guy walked in eyeballing me but then saw the gun on my waiste and left. Would that count as a defensive firearm use?
I also wonder whether people are answering accurately, since this is a hot button issue, a firearm rights advocate might lie and say they used a firearm defensively just to make a better argument for their position on the issue.
From the CDC:
Although definitions of defensive gun use vary, it is generally defined as the use of a
firearm to protect and defend one’s self, family, others, and/or property against crime
or victimization.
Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations
studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence indicates a
range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html
This has been reported many times by the CDC in many ways, including to say, "The use of firearms defensively occurs at least as often as does the criminal use of guns."
I think most people understand the plain language description when deciding if they defended themselves or others with a gun whether or not it resulted in discharging the gun.
It's useless to further dissect individual events in hopes of gaining some hidden insight into causes and effects. We don't do that for criminal stats, so pretending there's something more to learn from DGU stats would be treating the two data differently.
If a firearm had a "role"? Firearms are inanimate objects. The only "role" it plays is the one the person holding it decides. The gun has no choice in the matter.
You don't need defending from someone "eyeballing" you, so no, that's not a case of self defense at all.
However, if you're walking alone in a deserted parking lot toward your car, and you turn to see 3 young men walking in your direction, you can tell them to not come any closer -- they can wait until you leave to keep walking that way if they need to. If they continue, and you draw your weapon repeating the demand they not come closer and they stop/turn to leave, it's pretty clear the firearm made the difference.
If you believe you were at risk of injury, rape, or death, or another person may be, you can draw a gun. If doing so scares away the threat, then you were prudent to hold your fire.
If no rounds are fired, you really don't have to justify your actions. If the threat was real, it's doubtful they will file a report for you pointing a gun at them, which is why most of these situations go unreported. Basically nothing happened as the situation was diffused. That's the way it SHOULD be viewed, but there are some prosecutors who argue that if you didn't fire, then you really weren't in fear for your life. It becomes a Catch-22. if you fire, you're a killer. If you don't fire, you were not actually afraid enough to draw a gun.
The legal system often overrides common sense by playing Monday morning quarterback.
Maybe they should devise a poll of how many people with Concealed Carry rights don't carry because the laws threaten to destroy their lives if they ever unholster it.
-
Every issue of Concealed Carry magazine as a bunch of incidents where a firearm prevented or stopped criminal behavior.
-
Someone should troll MDA with articles like this.
-
A perfect example. Now we can all imagine this situation and assume these guys had bad intentions but an objective question would be to ask whether they were really going to commit a crime or not. Were they going to attack her or jerks trying to hit on her?
1am, dark area, alone. Maybe asking for directions. im not a fortune teller or mind reader. Kind of like red flag laws, which vegas does have. Yet cops couldnt do anything.
Forgot to mention, this was in vegas.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Someone should troll MDA with articles like this.
We do, but they insta-ban us all.
:geekdanc: :geekdanc: :geekdanc:
-
A perfect example. Now we can all imagine this situation and assume these guys had bad intentions but an objective question would be to ask whether they were really going to commit a crime or not. Were they going to attack her or jerks trying to hit on her?
Just like sexual harassment, the threat is in the eye of the beholder. What the perceived threat intended is not relevant if their actions are provoking a fear response.
That's why it's best to loudly demand they stop and not walk any closer. If they understand you're scared, they won't keep walking. If they are stupid or a threat, they will keep coming.
In CCW class, we went through a similar escalation of force process as Cops do. Verbal commands, loud command voice, repeat the command, draw and repeat the command with an additional "... or I will shoot you" after it. If you do everything you can to diffuse the situation, that's all that should be expected ... and necessary. If it escalates to use of deadly force, that's what target practice is for.
-
Someone should troll MDA with articles like this.
MDA = Mothers Demand Action?
-
MDA = Mothers Demand Action?
No, the Muscular Dystrophy Association.
#sarcasm
-
A perfect example. Now we can all imagine this situation and assume these guys had bad intentions but an objective question would be to ask whether they were really going to commit a crime or not. Were they going to attack her or jerks trying to hit on her?
yeah when guys wanna pick up a chick they think is cute they make sure to bring 5 friends to a dark parking lot, that always ups their up your odds of getting her to give you a phone number. SHM
keep trying to stuff those camels thru the eyes of needles.
(https://c.tenor.com/ibwfTRYbgocAAAAC/facepalm.gif)
-
No, the Muscular Dystrophy Association.
#sarcasm
Hahhhahha good laugh b4 bed.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
From the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html
This has been reported many times by the CDC in many ways, including to say, "The use of firearms defensively occurs at least as often as does the criminal use of guns."
I think most people understand the plain language description when deciding if they defended themselves or others with a gun whether or not it resulted in discharging the gun.
It's useless to further dissect individual events in hopes of gaining some hidden insight into causes and effects. We don't do that for criminal stats, so pretending there's something more to learn from DGU stats would be treating the two data differently.
If a firearm had a "role"? Firearms are inanimate objects. The only "role" it plays is the one the person holding it decides. The gun has no choice in the matter.
You don't need defending from someone "eyeballing" you, so no, that's not a case of self defense at all.
However, if you're walking alone in a deserted parking lot toward your car, and you turn to see 3 young men walking in your direction, you can tell them to not come any closer -- they can wait until you leave to keep walking that way if they need to. If they continue, and you draw your weapon repeating the demand they not come closer and they stop/turn to leave, it's pretty clear the firearm made the difference.
If you believe you were at risk of injury, rape, or death, or another person may be, you can draw a gun. If doing so scares away the threat, then you were prudent to hold your fire.
If no rounds are fired, you really don't have to justify your actions. If the threat was real, it's doubtful they will file a report for you pointing a gun at them, which is why most of these situations go unreported. Basically nothing happened as the situation was diffused. That's the way it SHOULD be viewed, but there are some prosecutors who argue that if you didn't fire, then you really weren't in fear for your life. It becomes a Catch-22. if you fire, you're a killer. If you don't fire, you were not actually afraid enough to draw a gun.
The legal system often overrides common sense by playing Monday morning quarterback.
Maybe they should devise a poll of how many people with Concealed Carry rights don't carry because the laws threaten to destroy their lives if they ever unholster it.
I don't have the same confidence in people understanding and all agreeing on what it would mean to defend oneself with a firearm. I remember learning in college how important it is to have clear and well defined questions on surveys. If you use a term that isn't widely agreed upon you would have to define it specifically for the sake of the survey to try and make sure everyone was answering the same thing. Maybe the designers of these surveys did a good job of narrowing and specifying the question in a way to minimize this issue, I don't know, but if it wasn't then I would say the results are less accurate.
Case in point, I met a drunk girl at a bar one time and she told me a guy just raped her. Well it turned out he grabbed her butt. Whether it was the alcohol talking, her emotional overreaction, or her lose definition of what rape means I don't know but in the end if she reported on a survey that she was raped it would be an inaccurate bit of data that would skew the results. I remember reports about how some huge number of girls on college campuses were victims of sexual assault but then when you looked at the way they asked the question it lumped any kind of unwanted advance, so if some drunk guy put his arm around a girl at a party and she didn't like it then it could have been counted as a "sexual assault". Heck, some crazy liberals believe that words are actual violence!
I am more interested in whether the firearm actually kept them safe (was used to keep them safe) than whether someone perceived that it kept them safe.
-
yeah when guys wanna pick up a chick they think is cute they make sure to bring 5 friends to a dark parking lot, that always ups their up your odds of getting her to give you a phone number. SHM
keep trying to stuff those camels thru the eyes of needles.
(https://c.tenor.com/ibwfTRYbgocAAAAC/facepalm.gif)
I never underestimate the stupidity of drunk young men.
-
No, the Muscular Dystrophy Association.
#sarcasm
Yeah, they are rabid anti gun people
#alsosarcasm
-
Case in point, I met a drunk girl at a bar one time and she told me a guy just raped her. Well it turned out he grabbed her butt. Whether it was the alcohol talking, her emotional overreaction, or her lose definition of what rape means I don't know but in the end if she reported on a survey that she was raped it would be an inaccurate bit of data that would skew the results. I remember reports about how some huge number of girls on college campuses were victims of sexual assault but then when you looked at the way they asked the question it lumped any kind of unwanted advance, so if some drunk guy put his arm around a girl at a party and she didn't like it then it could have been counted as a "sexual assault". Heck, some crazy liberals believe that words are actual violence!
Dude, really? You are going with 'This one time I heard something untrue means everything I heard MIGHT be untrue' line of logic? Why always with outlier data points and ethereal 'what if' BS? Yes not everything is cut and dry, but not everything is f-ing amorphous all the time either. Jeezus you sound like you smoke weed all day.
-
I don't have the same confidence in people understanding and all agreeing on what it would mean to defend oneself with a firearm. I remember learning in college how important it is to have clear and well defined questions on surveys. If you use a term that isn't widely agreed upon you would have to define it specifically for the sake of the survey to try and make sure everyone was answering the same thing. Maybe the designers of these surveys did a good job of narrowing and specifying the question in a way to minimize this issue, I don't know, but if it wasn't then I would say the results are less accurate.
Case in point, I met a drunk girl at a bar one time and she told me a guy just raped her. Well it turned out he grabbed her butt. Whether it was the alcohol talking, her emotional overreaction, or her lose definition of what rape means I don't know but in the end if she reported on a survey that she was raped it would be an inaccurate bit of data that would skew the results. I remember reports about how some huge number of girls on college campuses were victims of sexual assault but then when you looked at the way they asked the question it lumped any kind of unwanted advance, so if some drunk guy put his arm around a girl at a party and she didn't like it then it could have been counted as a "sexual assault". Heck, some crazy liberals believe that words are actual violence!
I am more interested in whether the firearm actually kept them safe (was used to keep them safe) than whether someone perceived that it kept them safe.
I missed where that "raped but not raped" girl's story involved a firearm.
That story has to do with her maybe lying about the incident on a questionnaire that may or may not have existed long after your drunk conversation conversation in a bar may or may not have happened.
If someone actually uses a gun defensively, they know they did it. The who, what when, where and why are okay to ask for data points and context, but the defense of ones self and/or others isn't something a respondent is likely to lie about on an anonymous questionnaire or poll.
My family used firearms 3 times that I can recall defending our home. Only once did it end in a discharge (including the loss of control the person running away experienced in his pants when the shot went off). Nobody was hit. No police report filed for that incident. Reports were filed the other two times, since they were follow-up interactions from previous reports. "I'm coming to your house", then "Knock knock! Open the door!" and finally "Please don't shoot! I'm leaving!!"
It doesn't need to involve a one-on-one encounter. It could be a burglar trying to open a window who hears from inside, "I have a gun!" and the sound of a round being chambered. Never have to see each other to know that a gun was used defensively.
You're reading too much into the perp's side of the equation. It's all about the potential victim stopping something bad from happening by using, or showing an intent to use, a firearm if necessary.
Maybe you should get funding for a poll of perps in prison to ascertain whether they committed their crimes in spite of having their victim pull a gun. If they fled, ask whether they "perceived" they were about to die and that's why they chose to commit their crime on someone else.
-
MDA = Mothers Demand Action?
Why? You part of that group? :-\
-
Why? You part of that group? :-\
I joined and not 1 mother there wanted any action. Then I found out they meant action against the 2nd amendment. I was disappointed.
-
There really is no way of knowing a closer estimate. Like my 1 example, no report filed, so didn't happen. Then add in you have people who used a gun and lost in court due to liberal judges/juries deeming so. Then what if a felon uses a gun in self defense, even though they're not supposed to have one. Do these fall in the self defense usage category? Or in Portland, OR a photographer was being followed by an angry group of people. He drew his ccw'd gun and the crowd stopped. He was arrested and sentenced to a few years in jail. So would this count toward self defense usage, when he got a brandishing charge. There's a vid on YT of the incident.
-
I joined and not 1 mother there wanted any action. Then I found out they meant action against the 2nd amendment. I was disappointed.
You would've gone if they wanted action? :o
:barf:
#CMOlovesKarens
-
I joined and not 1 mother there wanted any action. Then I found out they meant action against the 2nd amendment. I was disappointed.
i think you were looking for MILFs Demand Action
-
There really is no way of knowing a closer estimate. Like my 1 example, no report filed, so didn't happen. Then add in you have people who used a gun and lost in court due to liberal judges/juries deeming so. Then what if a felon uses a gun in self defense, even though they're not supposed to have one. Do these fall in the self defense usage category? Or in Portland, OR a photographer was being followed by an angry group of people. He drew his ccw'd gun and the crowd stopped. He was arrested and sentenced to a few years in jail. So would this count toward self defense usage, when he got a brandishing charge. There's a vid on YT of the incident.
Those are all reasons for an anonymous questionnaire/poll to collect real data that's not attributed to any individual.
If a felon defends him/herself with a gun, it counts.
If a victim defends him/herself with a gun, but a court decides it was not justified (perp was in the process of turning and leaving when shot in the back?), that counts.
As for brandishing, that's always a risk if the presentation of a firearm diffuses the situation. The attacker could easily involve the police by filing a report you pulled a gun on them for no reason. Usually the attacker is happy the police aren't involved, but some people will try to use the law against you. It's another reason calling 911 to record the encounter can be useful. You could also have the time to turn your camera-phone on to record the action as it happens. Witnesses would also be a bonus. If nothing else, a video of the suspect can be helpful to the Cops if you do file a complaint.
If a report isn't filed, that's one major reason for surveys and polls. Without a data collection effort to seek out these events, they will remain unreported and excluded from any meaningful analysis.
It's not about judging a defensive use of gun incident to be legal nor only including those labeled by the justice system as "justified", but to find out how many times it happens no matter the circumstances.
If Omni walks up to my front door uninvited, and he refuses to leave, what I do in response may count, too! :geekdanc:
-
Dude, really? You are going with 'This one time I heard something untrue means everything I heard MIGHT be untrue' line of logic? Why always with outlier data points and ethereal 'what if' BS? Yes not everything is cut and dry, but not everything is f-ing amorphous all the time either. Jeezus you sound like you smoke weed all day.
Its called used an anecdote to illustrate the problem. This type of problem is something that survey designers have to deal with. Do you think they just slap a bunch of questions together and hand them out? You can but then you get crappy unreliable results.
-
I missed where that "raped but not raped" girl's story involved a firearm.
The point was to illustrate how she reported something that wasn't true. If she were to participate in a survey that tried to see how many women were the victim of rape, her answer would skew the number higher than what it really was. In her mind she may have considered it rape but for the purposes of studying actual rape, her answer would have been inaccurate.
If someone actually uses a gun defensively, they know they did it. The who, what when, where and why are okay to ask for data points and context, but the defense of ones self and/or others isn't something a respondent is likely to lie about on an anonymous questionnaire or poll.
Again, it depends on what roll they think the firearm played. If the question asked "Did you point a gun at someone" then that is a much more specific question than "did you use a gun defensively" because depending on how the person viewed the event they might have seen just having the gun on their hip as using the gun to protect themselves but pointing a gun at someone is much less open to interpretation. On top of that such questions rely on whether there is an actual threat or just a perceived threat. These would be the types of things that a good survey designer would try to isolate or eliminate.
People flat out lying on a survey is a separate issue but there are also methods that can be used to minimize the rate of people lying such as having the survey be anonymous and by not asking questions that are too personal or would be seen as something that could be judgmental.
I think one thing a good questionnaire could do would be to ask a general question like "did you ever use a firearm defensively" and then follow it up with more specific questions like "have you ever pointed a gun at someone being aggressive towards you"
Lets take allegation of racism as a parallel issue. Many people report experiencing racism but was it really racism at work or was it a misperception? I have no idea at what rate but I know I have seen many many examples where someone cried racism when it really wasn't. Maybe they were trying to get something or maybe they were trained to see it everywhere, who knows. Do you question everytime someone claims racism or do you just take all reports as accurate?
-
Why? You part of that group? :-\
I don't think they would let me in, I think my masculine features might give me away
-
Its called used an anecdote to illustrate the problem. This type of problem is something that survey designers have to deal with. Do you think they just slap a bunch of questions together and hand them out? You can but then you get crappy unreliable results.
"Anecdotal Evidence" is an oxymoron.
anecdotal evidence
noun
A limited selection of examples which support or refute an argument,
but which are not supported by scientific or statistical analysis.
Have you ever taken a class in statistics? It’s the science of collecting, exploring and presenting large amounts of data to discover underlying patterns and trends. Statistics are applied every day – in research, industry and government – to become more scientific about decisions that need to be made.
IMO, statistical analysis IS a science, but the information produced by this process is, itself, not what I consider scientific. 10 people can analyze the same data or conduct the same surveys, and they can all get different conclusions. Need an example? How about the 2016 Presidential Election polling. Need another? How about the 2012 election.
Based on specific characteristics of the datasets, the way it was collected, the expected distribution of responses, etc, etc, etc, you pick the METHOD that best represents the dataset.
Basic Statistical Analysis Methods:
Regression
Standard Deviation
Mean
Sample Size Determination
Hypothesis Testing
/and more/
Depending on the method selected, the margins of error (how many people lied, didn't understand the questions, gave simple answers to complicated situations, etc.), would compensate for responses like the "rape-not-rape-lie" would be accounted for. In the final analysis, the predicted results are guesses and estimates. You can't really use the numbers as absolute or exact counts, because one of the purposes of the science is to take a sample of the population and extrapolate it to describe the whole population.
-
I don't think they would let me in, I think my masculine features might give me away
Looking at the MDA website, there are a lot of members who also have masculine features. :geekdanc:
-
The point was to illustrate how she reported something that wasn't true. If she were to participate in a survey that tried to see how many women were the victim of rape, her answer would skew the number higher than what it really was. In her mind she may have considered it rape but for the purposes of studying actual rape, her answer would have been inaccurate.
Again, it depends on what roll they think the firearm played. If the question asked "Did you point a gun at someone" then that is a much more specific question than "did you use a gun defensively" because depending on how the person viewed the event they might have seen just having the gun on their hip as using the gun to protect themselves but pointing a gun at someone is much less open to interpretation. On top of that such questions rely on whether there is an actual threat or just a perceived threat. These would be the types of things that a good survey designer would try to isolate or eliminate.
People flat out lying on a survey is a separate issue but there are also methods that can be used to minimize the rate of people lying such as having the survey be anonymous and by not asking questions that are too personal or would be seen as something that could be judgmental.
I think one thing a good questionnaire could do would be to ask a general question like "did you ever use a firearm defensively" and then follow it up with more specific questions like "have you ever pointed a gun at someone being aggressive towards you"
Lets take allegation of racism as a parallel issue. Many people report experiencing racism but was it really racism at work or was it a misperception? I have no idea at what rate but I know I have seen many many examples where someone cried racism when it really wasn't. Maybe they were trying to get something or maybe they were trained to see it everywhere, who knows. Do you question everytime someone claims racism or do you just take all reports as accurate?
Maybe you should research the actual questions asked in the surveys and the data collected from law enforcement, medical and social service agencies. Lott's work has been published, reviewed, refuted, verified, validated, reported, and quoted for many years. Should be easy to locate.
-
"Anecdotal Evidence" is an oxymoron.
anecdotal evidence
noun
A limited selection of examples which support or refute an argument,
but which are not supported by scientific or statistical analysis.
Have you ever taken a class in statistics? It’s the science of collecting, exploring and presenting large amounts of data to discover underlying patterns and trends. Statistics are applied every day – in research, industry and government – to become more scientific about decisions that need to be made.
IMO, statistical analysis IS a science, but the information produced by this process is, itself, not what I consider scientific. 10 people can analyze the same data or conduct the same surveys, and they can all get different conclusions. Need an example? How about the 2016 Presidential Election polling. Need another? How about the 2012 election.
Based on specific characteristics of the datasets, the way it was collected, the expected distribution of responses, etc, etc, etc, you pick the METHOD that best represents the dataset.
Basic Statistical Analysis Methods:
Regression
Standard Deviation
Mean
Sample Size Determination
Hypothesis Testing
/and more/
Depending on the method selected, the margins of error (how many people lied, didn't understand the questions, gave simple answers to complicated situations, etc.), responses like the "rape-not-rape-lie" would be accounted for. In the final analysis, the predicted results are guesses and estimates. You can't really use the numbers as absolute or exact counts, because one of the purposes of the science is to take a sample of the population and extrapolate it to describe the whole population.
I gave an anecdote as an illustration, not as evidence. I definitely know better than to try and base an argument on "one time I heard/saw..."
I did take statistics courses in college, it was part of my sociology degree. This is why I am questioning how the surveys were designed and why I know how important it is to design surveys well.
Survey data is never going to give you numbers that are purely correct and in some ways that makes social sciences harder than the hard sciences. Humans can be so hard to study for the very nature that people might purposefully answer wrong to skew a result or answer differently depend on how a question is worded. The better these gun use surveys were designed and administered the more reliable and therefore useful they are to our cause thus I hope that they were designed well and are accurate. I would refuse to use a survey that made a great argument for gun rights if I knew it was highly flawed.
-
Looking at the MDA website, there are a lot of members who also have masculine features. :geekdanc:
I recall mustaches on some of them. . .
-
Maybe you should research the actual questions asked in the surveys and the data collected from law enforcement, medical and social service agencies. Lott's work has been published, reviewed, refuted, verified, validated, reported, and quoted for many years. Should be easy to locate.
That is exactly what I was thinking about doing.
-
I recall mustaches on some of them. . .
Is that CMO's type?
-
Is that CMO's type?
Well, he looked for action with them.
-
Is that CMO's type?
I dont discriminate.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Only if they can prove jurisdiction and that it was within the statute of limitations ;)
You aren't too observant. It doen't matter.
They run you through the "system" even if they know they will lose.
The damage to your savings, reputation, and disruption in your life is what they want.
From street cops to the highest levels of government, they can do as they damn well
please and as long as they are union or party members, us "little people" have very little
legal recourse's
It is notable that the "ambulance chasing" lawyer that destroyed a man's life and reputation
was assassinated on his front porch,
is now a cold case.
Nobody saw anything.
:wave:
-
It is notable that the "ambulance chasing" lawyer that destroyed a man's life and reputation was assassinated on his front porch,
is now a cold case.
Nobody saw anything.
:wave:
The killer was smart. He saved himself the hardest part, getting rid of the body.
-
You aren't too observant. It doen't matter.
They run you through the "system" even if they know they will lose.
The damage to your savings, reputation, and disruption in your life is what they want.
From street cops to the highest levels of government, they can do as they damn well
please and as long as they are union or party members, us "little people" have very little
legal recourse's
It is notable that the "ambulance chasing" lawyer that destroyed a man's life and reputation
was assassinated on his front porch,
is now a cold case.
Nobody saw anything.
:wave:
If an officer arrested someone without knowing where the crime occurred or whether it occurred recently enough the arrested person would be in line for quite a big payout. However I was half making a joke anyway.
-
If an officer arrested someone without knowing where the crime occurred or whether it occurred recently enough the arrested person would be in line for quite a big payout. However I was half making a joke anyway.
You have to prove the officer knowingly violated your rights or department policy before any "big payout."
A payout doesn't give you back the time you spent in jail, meeting with lawyers, losing sleep, looking for a new job, losing your marriage, etc. Getting arrested for something can ruin your life even if you're acquitted and compensated.
Most states pay wrongly convicted inmates $50K/year they were incarcerated. In that time, you probably lost your house, your car, all your clothes, electronics, and the household items that you accumulated over your lifetime. Not exactly a fair trade.
And that "big payout" can take years as the state/city drags it through appeals courts and continuances. That's why most litigants settle.
You can joke about it, but the fact remains that Cops enjoy qualified immunity, are often the keepers of the evidence you need to prove your case, and that evidence can be accidentally "lost". This is why more and more people record every LE encounter themselves rather than trust the Cop's body camera is working and any video recorded will be turned over when requested.
The more I watch the YT videos of Cops lying, falsifying reports, violating the law and our rights, and using bullying tactics to intimidate us to comply, the more I think law enforcement is less about public safety and more about "arrest them all and let the courts sort it out."
-
"To protect and serve". All police recruits will say but too few will ever abide by.
-
You have to prove the officer knowingly violated your rights or department policy before any "big payout."
A payout doesn't give you back the time you spent in jail, meeting with lawyers, losing sleep, looking for a new job, losing your marriage, etc. Getting arrested for something can ruin your life even if you're acquitted and compensated.
Most states pay wrongly convicted inmates $50K/year they were incarcerated. In that time, you probably lost your house, your car, all your clothes, electronics, and the household items that you accumulated over your lifetime. Not exactly a fair trade.
And that "big payout" can take years as the state/city drags it through appeals courts and continuances. That's why most litigants settle.
You can joke about it, but the fact remains that Cops enjoy qualified immunity, are often the keepers of the evidence you need to prove your case, and that evidence can be accidentally "lost". This is why more and more people record every LE encounter themselves rather than trust the Cop's body camera is working and any video recorded will be turned over when requested.
The more I watch the YT videos of Cops lying, falsifying reports, violating the law and our rights, and using bullying tactics to intimidate us to comply, the more I think law enforcement is less about public safety and more about "arrest them all and let the courts sort it out."
You would have to prove that he wasn't acting in good faith. So if, for example, I said out loud I once stole something from Walmart and the officer arrested me right then and there then he would be in trouble because he didn't even attempt to prove venue or that the statute of limitations was still valid. The officer wouldn't have been acting in good faith if he did this.
If someone online admitted to a defensive gun use realistically it isn't going to go anywhere unless there was some murder or felony assault case was opened and the cops were investigating. A cop isn't going to watch 2aHawaii and go make a case because one guy here told a defensive gun use case not tied to anything. Good luck even getting a search warrant based on that.
I think cops run the spectrum. Some are jaded and don't care, like the cop that found my stolen car. Others are eager to catch the bad guys but are a little too aggressive in doing so. Others do manage to find the right balance of catching the bad guys but not stepping over the line in terms of restricting freedoms.
-
You would have to prove that he wasn't acting in good faith. So if, for example, I said out loud I once stole something from Walmart and the officer arrested me right then and there then he would be in trouble because he didn't even attempt to prove venue or that the statute of limitations was still valid. The officer wouldn't have been acting in good faith if he did this.
If someone online admitted to a defensive gun use realistically it isn't going to go anywhere unless there was some murder or felony assault case was opened and the cops were investigating. A cop isn't going to watch 2aHawaii and go make a case because one guy here told a defensive gun use case not tied to anything. Good luck even getting a search warrant based on that.
I think cops run the spectrum. Some are jaded and don't care, like the cop that found my stolen car. Others are eager to catch the bad guys but are a little too aggressive in doing so. Others do manage to find the right balance of catching the bad guys but not stepping over the line in terms of restricting freedoms.
If you confess to theft in front of a Cop, and he arrests you, who's at fault again? He may TRY to investigate, but if you clam up (5th amendment), is be acting in good faith. He arrests, the detectives investigate, and the DA decides if you get charged. Cops are not fortune tellers. They don't know when the crime occurred if you don't tell them. But your confession, if caught on body camera, and if not solicited by law enforcement in anyway, is a voluntary admission. It can at least get you an obstructing the officer's official duties charge. I see that as no different than being overheard in an airport saying you have a bomb in your bag. Doesn't have to be true or provable. Your statement is the evidence. The crime is whatever they can throw at you for being an idiot.
When did we pivot to whether or not Online stories about DGU are going to be investigated? Not sure how that even applies to the DGU topic or DGU surveys. Just bored?
-
You have to prove the officer knowingly violated your rights or department policy before any "big payout."
A payout doesn't give you back the time you spent in jail, meeting with lawyers, losing sleep, looking for a new job, losing your marriage, etc. Getting arrested for something can ruin your life even if you're acquitted and compensated.
Most states pay wrongly convicted inmates $50K/year they were incarcerated. In that time, you probably lost your house, your car, all your clothes, electronics, and the household items that you accumulated over your lifetime. Not exactly a fair trade.
And that "big payout" can take years as the state/city drags it through appeals courts and continuances. That's why most litigants settle.
You can joke about it, but the fact remains that Cops enjoy qualified immunity, are often the keepers of the evidence you need to prove your case, and that evidence can be accidentally "lost". This is why more and more people record every LE encounter themselves rather than trust the Cop's body camera is working and any video recorded will be turned over when requested.
The more I watch the YT videos of Cops lying, falsifying reports, violating the law and our rights, and using bullying tactics to intimidate us to comply, the more I think law enforcement is less about public safety and more about "arrest them all and let the courts sort it out."
Common tactic is a miss labeled bodycam file and its lost forever.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Common tactic is a miss labeled bodycam file and its lost forever.
I saw that YT video, too! :rofl:
Yeah, Cops planting, losing or burying evidence isn't new. The YT audit folks always remind us to use a dash cam and/or cellphone to record all encounters with police. You can't rely on the Cop's dash or body cameras to be working, turned on, aimed the right way, or picking up everyone's audio. The video files can be deleted (by people with access), mislabeled (bogus case number) or just never uploaded (oops! Can't find my camera! Must have gotten pulled off in the struggle.).
The problem I've had with every dash cam I bought is the batteries are too small to provide more than a couple minutes power when the ignition switch is off. That's a problem if you're told to turn off your engine and remove the keys. If you can leave the key inserted and "Accessories" mode on, you can still power the camera, but don't count on being able to do that.
I have one of those external devices that can jump-start my truck if the battery dies. It also can charge cellphones and other electronics. I was thinking of plugging that into the car to continuously charge it, and to power the camera when the ignition's off.
-
My 2001 Dodge Ram has 2 factory power outlets. One key control and one always hot.
-
My 2001 Dodge Ram has 2 factory power outlets. One key control and one always hot.
I believe my Tacoma has that, but I don't want the camera to be draining my truck battery for days on end sitting in my garage.
My camera is actually connected directly to the fuse box using a fuse tap. I used to jam a wire into a fuse slot and wedge the fuse back in. The tap is neater and in most cases won't void your auto warranty.
Since I'm using the fuse panel, I can select a circuit that's always on, on with ACC and START, or just START. I know that even a small device on the truck battery is enough to drain it. I've had a dead battery more than once after the vehicle's interior light was left on overnight. >:(
-
I believe my Tacoma has that, but I don't want the camera to be draining my truck battery for days on end sitting in my garage.
Just gotta remember to pull the plug.
-
Just gotta remember to pull the plug.
Yeah, we all know how that goes! Hands full of packages, in a hurry .... :crazy:
Then there's the real possibility of forgetting to plug it in, too. Not very useful without power!
-
When did we pivot to whether or not Online stories about DGU are going to be investigated? Not sure how that even applies to the DGU topic or DGU surveys. Just bored?
Grovler said he can't tell his story because democrats will investigate him.
-
I saw that YT video, too! :rofl:
Yeah, Cops planting, losing or burying evidence isn't new. The YT audit folks always remind us to use a dash cam and/or cellphone to record all encounters with police. You can't rely on the Cop's dash or body cameras to be working, turned on, aimed the right way, or picking up everyone's audio. The video files can be deleted (by people with access), mislabeled (bogus case number) or just never uploaded (oops! Can't find my camera! Must have gotten pulled off in the struggle.).
The problem I've had with every dash cam I bought is the batteries are too small to provide more than a couple minutes power when the ignition switch is off. That's a problem if you're told to turn off your engine and remove the keys. If you can leave the key inserted and "Accessories" mode on, you can still power the camera, but don't count on being able to do that.
I have one of those external devices that can jump-start my truck if the battery dies. It also can charge cellphones and other electronics. I was thinking of plugging that into the car to continuously charge it, and to power the camera when the ignition's off.
Depending on the brand this could be a problem. I think some of the more professional brands this would be much more difficult to do. Cameras have GPS, they apparently communicate with the Tasers and each other, and videos are tracked by officers as well incident type. An administrator could probably delete the videos but there would be a record of that too.
-
Depending on the brand this could be a problem. I think some of the more professional brands this would be much more difficult to do. Cameras have GPS, they apparently communicate with the Tasers and each other, and videos are tracked by officers as well incident type. An administrator could probably delete the videos but there would be a record of that too.
Dude, you need to be online during normal working ours from 8am-5pm., Monday-Friday. Excluding state of federal holidays. That way you can at least get better responses from me. :rofl:
-
Depending on the brand this could be a problem. I think some of the more professional brands this would be much more difficult to do. Cameras have GPS, they apparently communicate with the Tasers and each other, and videos are tracked by officers as well incident type. An administrator could probably delete the videos but there would be a record of that too.
I'm not sure what "problem" you're describing. Brand of what? Dash cam? Body cam?
My dash cam has GPS that records location, speed and direction of travel.
If you're simply focused on the Cops deleting or hiding video recordings, no matter how elaborate the system, Cops (or anyone) can usually find a workaround.
Not a huge leap of the imagination to see a Cop putting a bogus court case on a given video recording in the system. When someone pulls up the videos associated with the real case number, that one doesn't appear.
If the Cop is accused of intentionally hiding video footage, and the case is 1 digit or letter off, it's easy to plea "Honest mistake."
Evidence goes missing all the time. I don't expect video to be any different.
-
I'm not sure what "problem" you're describing. Brand of what? Dash cam? Body cam?
My dash cam has GPS that records location, speed and direction of travel.
If you're simply focused on the Cops deleting or hiding video recordings, no matter how elaborate the system, Cops (or anyone) can usually find a workaround.
Not a huge leap of the imagination to see a Cop putting a bogus court case on a given video recording in the system. When someone pulls up the videos associated with the real case number, that one doesn't appear.
If the Cop is accused of intentionally hiding video footage, and the case is 1 digit or letter off, it's easy to plea "Honest mistake."
Evidence goes missing all the time. I don't expect video to be any different.
Sorry, body camera. I have read about the Axon brand, the ones that make the Taser. One of the features they also offer is cloud storage of the video, so even if the chief of police personally deleted the video there would be a record somewhere else.
No system is fullproof of course but generally the idea is making it harder to cheat or abuse.
-
Sorry, body camera. I have read about the Axon brand, the ones that make the Taser. One of the features they also offer is cloud storage of the video, so even if the chief of police personally deleted the video there would be a record somewhere else.
No system is fullproof of course but generally the idea is making it harder to cheat or abuse.
You're missing the fundamental issue. I'm not saying video evidence is easy to delete. When the video is captured, it's just a filename that might have some metadata with officer badge#, officer name, precinct, GPS location, etc. What is not automatically captured is the case number. That gets assigned manually, usually stating out as a report control number.
It's up to someone to enter that data for each video file. Otherwise, the evidence isn't tied to the case, making searching for evidence in any particular case harder.
What's been reported already is Cops are hiding video by inputting a bogus case number. So, when the prosecutor, defense, or whoever might be investigating a complaint against that officer requests that evidence, the relevant video won't be included in a search of the real case number. It would take some effort to locate the relevant footage assuming you know it should have been made available.
None of that is related to the camera brand, features or storage location.
You say no system is perfect, but that's because most systems are designed with the operator in mind ahead of security. The design problem in these types of products revolves around the need to share the data among officers, prosecutors, the police higher-ups, etc.
The worst thing we can do is make the system harder to work with than is absolutely necessary. Once security becomes a burden, people start finding shortcuts and workarounds to make their jobs easier. Think: writing down passwords that are too long and cryptic to remember. That's a major security hole, but so is creating easy-to-pronounce and short-enough-to-remember-(and crack) passwords. Until everyone has an RFID chip embedded in their body somewhere, and all access is granted on a retina scan and RFID verification, no system will be secure AND easy to access for those with authorization.
Keeping a record of each change is relatively minor, but to make it fool proof, you need to cross-reference that with facility entry logs, video cameras for all devices on the network, and so on. Login credentials are too easy to "borrow", and even biometrics fail when someone is careless -- leaving a screen unlocked while they leave their desk for a minute.
Even voice print security has it s limitations.... first 25 seconds .....
https://youtu.be/rSQWO5REZbU
-
Don't forget the good ole "I forgot to turn my bodycam on" as reason why there's no file. Which is not illegal, just against department policy. Then the OK to turn off when cops are talking amongst themselves away from who they're in contact with.
I know a guy who submitted a FOIA and got the body cam from his traffic stop. There is a huge gap when the 2 cops are talking away from him. Not only did he get a BS citation, but his middle name was spelled wrong. So when someone tries to find the citation by name, nothing comes up. It is not a hard middle name to spell either. And his first and last name are very common. So the middle name is important if not you get tons of people with the same name. Is it impossible to find, no . But it takes way more time.
-
Don't forget the good ole "I forgot to turn my bodycam on" as reason why there's no file. Which is not illegal, just against department policy. Then the OK to turn off when cops are talking amongst themselves away from who they're in contact with.
I know a guy who submitted a FOIA and got the body cam from his traffic stop. There is a huge gap when the 2 cops are talking away from him. Not only did he get a BS citation, but his middle name was spelled wrong. So when someone tries to find the citation by name, nothing comes up. It is not a hard middle name to spell either. And his first and last name are very common. So the middle name is important if not you get tons of people with the same name. Is it impossible to find, no . But it takes way more time.
That can be a double edged sword. If you don't allow cops to turn off their cameras the storage requirements greatly increase, you get footage of them in the bathroom, and you might discourage people who want to report things anonymously.
Hopefully the ticket for your friend got thrown out since the officer couldn't even manage to fill it out accurately.
-
That can be a double edged sword. If you don't allow cops to turn off their cameras the storage requirements greatly increase, you get footage of them in the bathroom, and you might discourage people who want to report things anonymously.
Hopefully the ticket for your friend got thrown out since the officer couldn't even manage to fill it out accurately.
Cops don't record in the squad car where 2 officers are maybe having less than professional discussions, in the bathroom, etc. What they need is a camera system that can activate the body cams at the time a call comes in -- technology that already can be used.
Doesn't take much looking to find these answers.
The AXON 2 is the most popular model police body cam.
Battery power is about 12 hrs minimum.
Depending on the quality settings, it can store up to 70 hours of AV recordings on 64gb of memory.
Current model can record MPEG4 at 1080P (HD) quality.
The cameras can be wireless activated with the opening of the cruiser's door or activation of the light bar.
Then there's the AXON 3
With the Axon Signal wireless activation technology -- to allow automatic and remote activation.
"In the event of a late or non-activation, retrieve up to 18 hours of audio-free footage from critical incidents so that truth is preserved"
Same battery life and 64gb storage as the Model 2.
So, in short, the body cams have enough battery life to complete a normal duty shift, and enough storage to cover nearly 9 8-hour shifts. No reason they can't upload the recordings to a server from a direct upload connection or via the web after each shift to backup the data and free up space on the devices.
-
Cops don't record in the squad car where 2 officers are maybe having less than professional discussions, in the bathroom, etc. What they need is a camera system that can activate the body cams at the time a call comes in -- technology that already can be used.
Doesn't take much looking to find these answers.
The AXON 2 is the most popular model police body cam.
Battery power is about 12 hrs minimum.
Depending on the quality settings, it can store up to 70 hours of AV recordings on 64gb of memory.
Current model can record MPEG4 at 1080P (HD) quality.
The cameras can be wireless activated with the opening of the cruiser's door or activation of the light bar.
Then there's the AXON 3
With the Axon Signal wireless activation technology -- to allow automatic and remote activation.
"In the event of a late or non-activation, retrieve up to 18 hours of audio-free footage from critical incidents so that truth is preserved"
Same battery life and 64gb storage as the Model 2.
So, in short, the body cams have enough battery life to complete a normal duty shift, and enough storage to cover nearly 9 8-hour shifts. No reason they can't upload the recordings to a server from a direct upload connection or via the web after each shift to backup the data and free up space on the devices.
The cameras certainly can record a full shift but the storage costs are significant. You're in IT right? Imagine 1000 officers recording full shifts, uploading them to some server all the way on the mainland, and keeping that for a year or more. Recording just 3 hours a day of the necessary interactions would be much easier to store from a cost standpoint.
It sounds like Axon has come up with a pretty good system that tries to cover a lot of the problems that can be faced in terms of accurate and transparent record keeping. Humans will always try to find a way to cheat of course. I guess the best think to do is try to balance the costs and benefits. Either way I think body cameras have resulted in a significant improvement in terms of accountability. We see officers getting fired or convicted of crimes no where we otherwise probably wouldn't due to he said-she said type situations.
-
The cameras certainly can record a full shift but the storage costs are significant. You're in IT right? Imagine 1000 officers recording full shifts, uploading them to some server all the way on the mainland, and keeping that for a year or more. Recording just 3 hours a day of the necessary interactions would be much easier to store from a cost standpoint.
It sounds like Axon has come up with a pretty good system that tries to cover a lot of the problems that can be faced in terms of accurate and transparent record keeping. Humans will always try to find a way to cheat of course. I guess the best think to do is try to balance the costs and benefits. Either way I think body cameras have resulted in a significant improvement in terms of accountability. We see officers getting fired or convicted of crimes no where we otherwise probably wouldn't due to he said-she said type situations.
Ever hear of retention and backup policies?
Recordings not needed for an active case can be backed up and deleted from the active file server in like 30 days.
Archived footage of completed cases can also be deleted.
And so on....
It's a common practice. With compression software today, it's easy to store massive amounts of old recordings in an affordable data storage facility.
-
Dont forget maybe laws in place for "missing" files or segments that hold the officer responsible during and leading up to interactions within reason.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Ever hear of retention and backup policies?
Recordings not needed for an active case can be backed up and deleted from the active file server in like 30 days.
Archived footage of completed cases can also be deleted.
And so on....
It's a common practice. With compression software today, it's easy to store massive amounts of old recordings in an affordable data storage facility.
I don't think lossless data compression is that good. Plus that doesn't address the bandwidth issue of sending it all to the mainland.
According to the police policy they have to save videos for at least 13 months, and some videos have to be stored for 3 years or more. How many terabytes a day do you think they are filling up?
-
I don't think lossless data compression is that good. Plus that doesn't address the bandwidth issue of sending it all to the mainland.
According to the police policy they have to save videos for at least 13 months, and some videos have to be stored for 3 years or more. How many terabytes a day do you think they are filling up?
Not sure on what you're basing your technical opinion, but compressing video recorded at MPEG-4 1080P with H.265 won't cause any real quality decline. H.265 can easily serve up 4K video, so 1080P is no problem.
If you take a 28GB BluRay MKV file and convert it to H.265 at 1080P, the file size will be close to 14GB -- around half the original size. Compression also reduces bandwidth by around half.
Many professional videographers store their work in 4K using H.264 or H.265. The quality is more than enough to use as source material, then exported as 1080P in whatever CODEC suits their needs. 1080P is more than sufficient for to positively ID someone from video.
The retention policy for new videos will be in a "production" server, which can use the original uncompressed files. Storage can be in the
If you have a fast Internet connection, there's really no major concern with file transfer speeds. That is, if you are using the "cloud" for long term storage.
For short term, setting up a server onsite is not that cost prohibitive. There are plenty of storage solutions for free and on the enterprise IT market.
This is not a 1 server or one service solution. You need 3 data stores: Every Day Use (new video uploads), Production (stuff beyond the first server's retention but still active), and archive (Backup of every file on the first two servers). Archives can be on tape, cloud storage, or RAID. Offsite is best, in case the other copies are lost or damaged.
-
Not sure on what you're basing your technical opinion, but compressing video recorded at MPEG-4 1080P with H.265 won't cause any real quality decline. H.265 can easily serve up 4K video, so 1080P is no problem.
If you take a 28GB BluRay MKV file and convert it to H.265 at 1080P, the file size will be close to 14GB -- around half the original size. Compression also reduces bandwidth by around half.
Many professional videographers store their work in 4K using H.264 or H.265. The quality is more than enough to use as source material, then exported as 1080P in whatever CODEC suits their needs. 1080P is more than sufficient for to positively ID someone from video.
The retention policy for new videos will be in a "production" server, which can use the original uncompressed files. Storage can be in the
If you have a fast Internet connection, there's really no major concern with file transfer speeds. That is, if you are using the "cloud" for long term storage.
For short term, setting up a server onsite is not that cost prohibitive. There are plenty of storage solutions for free and on the enterprise IT market.
This is not a 1 server or one service solution. You need 3 data stores: Every Day Use (new video uploads), Production (stuff beyond the first server's retention but still active), and archive (Backup of every file on the first two servers). Archives can be on tape, cloud storage, or RAID. Offsite is best, in case the other copies are lost or damaged.
I am aware that there are a number of storage options and compression options but in the end aren't we still talking about terabytes a day? If 1000 officers recorded 8 hours of footage per day what would that be per day? It seems like 1080p footage comes to about 1 gb an hour so lets say 8 gb per officer, times 1000 officers would be 8 terabytes right? If they use a compression that causes zero loss of data and it halves the size as you suggest that would be 4Tb a day? I have no idea how long it would take to 4 terabytes extra a day through the city's internet connection. 4 TB a day equals 1460 TB a year but there is a backup so basically we double the amount, so about 3000 TB a year just for body camera footage. Do you know the annual cost of 3 petabytes of data? Tried looking finding costs from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands but some of them seemed a few years old. Looks like a Dell server alone with that much storage is $60,000!
https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/cty/powervault-me4084-storage-array/spd/powervault-me4084/pv_me4084_13102?gacd=9650523-1034-5761040-266691960-0&dgc=st&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvZPBgteo8wIV82pvBB3G7gupEAQYASABEgKeMvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds&nclid=sRaVk-r1auxtQPoaejRrQCdu6BDwS2rr7-MDmlj5L2Ewe6dTOtB5D4sfB9AW2fSZ8Qn7pz4dJ2e0YPYBiuStNw
-
I am aware that there are a number of storage options and compression options but in the end aren't we still talking about terabytes a day? If 1000 officers recorded 8 hours of footage per day what would that be per day? It seems like 1080p footage comes to about 1 gb an hour so lets say 8 gb per officer, times 1000 officers would be 8 terabytes right? If they use a compression that causes zero loss of data and it halves the size as you suggest that would be 4Tb a day? I have no idea how long it would take to 4 terabytes extra a day through the city's internet connection. 4 TB a day equals 1460 TB a year but there is a backup so basically we double the amount, so about 3000 TB a year just for body camera footage. Do you know the annual cost of 3 petabytes of data? Tried looking finding costs from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands but some of them seemed a few years old. Looks like a Dell server alone with that much storage is $60,000!
https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/cty/powervault-me4084-storage-array/spd/powervault-me4084/pv_me4084_13102?gacd=9650523-1034-5761040-266691960-0&dgc=st&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvZPBgteo8wIV82pvBB3G7gupEAQYASABEgKeMvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds&nclid=sRaVk-r1auxtQPoaejRrQCdu6BDwS2rr7-MDmlj5L2Ewe6dTOtB5D4sfB9AW2fSZ8Qn7pz4dJ2e0YPYBiuStNw
Unless you've spec'ed out and procured servers before, it's not something you should attempt on your own. Technologies change monthly. New services and providers find new and better ways to increase offerings and decrease costs.
Even high tech providers for the government are subscribing to data centers strategically located around the country (and world). It's easier and cheaper to lease storage, web services and database hosts on a large scale than it is to run out to Dell and buy everything. Facilities that can support large data warehouses are not cheap or easy to find.
Whether you choose Amazon or some other top name for your data hosting needs, it's going to be easier and cheaper in the long run than doing everything in-house.
Are officers on calls 8 hours per day? Most are involved in role call, court appearances, filling out reports, patrolling, eating lunch, etc. Something tells me most aren't going to record more than 4 hours of video unless they are performing traffic enforcement.
Are all 1,000 officers handling calls each day? Aren't some working at the headquarters, working security for buildings and VIP visitors, and so on.
You'd need actual averages for the actual number of patrol officers who actually handle interactions with suspects. For instance, if I call the Cops because someone broke into my car, there's no reason to record or upload any video of me filing out a report with the officer/s.
Metrics are needed. I have a feeling the AXON folks, as well as the departments using them, have metrics that can answer these questions.
It's not a simple start-to-end-of-shift calculation.
-
Here are some storage array numbers I found in a quick search:
If you want all SSD storage to reduce A/C cooling needs eliminate vibrations from spindles, and increase storage speeds,
I found a CyberStore 248N 48x NVMe All Flash Storage Array. It takes up to 48 NVMe devices, and a total of 768TB of storage.
Only takes up 2U in a server cabinet.
$8,095
You can also find backup and archive appliances in the same price range that are dedicated to nothing but making sure you have copies of all your production data if needed.
Most NAS (Network Attached Storage) appliances don't need an actual server to function. It has the processor and memory to run network protocols so anyone who needs access can add, change and delete data on it. That makes the cost of the "storage server" much cheaper than your $60K estimate.
-
Unless you've spec'ed out and procured servers before, it's not something you should attempt on your own. Technologies change monthly. New services and providers find new and better ways to increase offerings and decrease costs.
Even high tech providers for the government are subscribing to data centers strategically located around the country (and world). It's easier and cheaper to lease storage, web services and database hosts on a large scale than it is to run out to Dell and buy everything. Facilities that can support large data warehouses are not cheap or easy to find.
Whether you choose Amazon or some other top name for your data hosting needs, it's going to be easier and cheaper in the long run than doing everything in-house.
Are officers on calls 8 hours per day? Most are involved in role call, court appearances, filling out reports, patrolling, eating lunch, etc. Something tells me most aren't going to record more than 4 hours of video unless they are performing traffic enforcement.
Are all 1,000 officers handling calls each day? Aren't some working at the headquarters, working security for buildings and VIP visitors, and so on.
You'd need actual averages for the actual number of patrol officers who actually handle interactions with suspects. For instance, if I call the Cops because someone broke into my car, there's no reason to record or upload any video of me filing out a report with the officer/s.
Metrics are needed. I have a feeling the AXON folks, as well as the departments using them, have metrics that can answer these questions.
It's not a simple start-to-end-of-shift calculation.
I thought you were suggesting that officer record everything so I estimated 8 hours a day.
-
I thought you were suggesting that officer record everything so I estimated 8 hours a day.
I never said "everything during the entire shift."