Peoria Police

Cameras don’t cow mob violence

25 Comments

Peoria LogoIn the “Police and Courts” section of the Journal Star today (couldn’t find it online to link to it), there’s this story:

Customers at Peoria store attacked by about 12 men

PEORIA — A group of about a dozen men attacked three customers at an East Bluff convenient store with metal poles and a bottle Wednesday night, according to police and witnesses at the scene.

Three young men were inside the Short Stop Food Mart, 1302 E. Frye Ave., about 10:05 p.m. when the group rushed inside and began beating two of the the three, a witness said. During the fight a display of candy and food near the cash register was knocked over and bits of glass were left upon the floor.

The third victim, believed to be the youngest of the trio, ran to the back of the store and was reportedly unharmed. After the brawl, the dozen or so men left the store and drove off in two vehicles in unknown directions. Police and witnesses said the two older victims suffered what appeared to be nonlife-threatening injuries.

This story caught my eye because it’s one of only two locations in Peoria where police surveillance cameras have been deployed. In fact, if you click here, you can see a live picture of the Short Stop Food Mart. These cameras are supposed to deter crime and assist the police in solving any crimes that might occur.

I don’t think anyone expected that all crime would stop once the cameras went up, but now that there has been some blatant violence right in front of one of them, I wonder how the camera will play into the investigation of this crime. It apparently isn’t sharp enough to help officers know exactly how many perpetrators there were (“A group of about a dozen men…”), or which direction they made their getaway (the men “drove off in two vehicles in unknown directions“). Another question is, was police response any quicker because of the camera?

25 thoughts on “Cameras don’t cow mob violence”

  1. I see the value of having a camera..if its recordable and reliable, and extremely clear. If the police did not get the license plate numbers from the vehicles, then the cameras are 100% completely useless, and the city needs a refund. If they do catch the criminals involved…it would be a huge success. So, if you don’t here about it anymore..its fair to say that they are useless and uneffective and a waste of taxpayer money.

  3. I think part of the draw of the camera is that it is supposed to be a deterent. The longer it is there people tend to “forget” its there and behaviors are what they were before the camera. If the camera can’t come close to identifying anyone or their vehicles, we have been failed. It can go in the column of things that make us look like we(the city)are trying to prevent crime but not really doing it.

  4. The hard truth about the cameras actually being a deterent is that the potential criminal would have to know about them. Criminals who beat people up in places of business, most likely do not see the news on the internet, or read your blog, (or know what that means..for that matter) So, what you have is a blind study of truth about what unfolds as far as security substanance.

  5. RE: East Bluff Barbie

    Yes, this article states the obvious and doesn’t state that they caught or have anyone as a suspect. Although, the police may not be commenting as the investigation is going on, and this makes sense…but, ususally they will put the sense of security there..as far as possible suspects are concerned.

  8. The clarity of the camera on the internet feed is not reflective of what the camera actually does with a direct feed (eg: to officer’s laptops) or with the recorded portions.

  10. A few years back I sat on a jury for a criminal case. The case involved some scruffy looking black guy having done something to some white woman. There was no physical evidence of any kind. The incident took place at one of the local hospitals. The Assistant DA on the case said that security cameras at the hospital had caught the incident which included a man resembling the defendant. The prosecutor failed to bring the tape to the trial. So it was an example of ‘well we had a film of it but we can’t show you, trust us it looked like him’. The case ended up being a he said she said and no evidence whatsoever. We let the man go, the case was poorly prepared.

    Afterward the DA came back to the Jury room to ask our reasoning as to why we let the man off. We inquired more about the alleged tape. It turns out the hospital has no means of offloading the recording so that it could be used in a case. We also learned that the hospitals security cameras exist to record and not actually stop anything in action. It is isn’t like the TV show Las Vegas, where the guys in the room radio the men on the floor to stop something underway. Further, neither the hospital nor the police (cause they could not get a copy) retained the recording to be used in a trial. So maybe there was a tape, maybe there wasn’t we will never no. Supposedly an officer has reviewed the recording shortly after the incident was reported but it isn’t like the film was directly compared to the defendant. The quality of the recording seemed suspect based on the officer’s testimony.

    So… I guess having a camera system is rather pointless, even wasteful, if you can’t a) record and offload that recording, b) can’t get a clear shot of whatever you are filming, c) don’t have the capacity to respond to an incident underway.

  11. Looking at the online feed of that camera on my hi-def monitor, I cannot read crap. I can’t even tell if they are Illinois plates or not. The image seems rather worthless to me as any sort of ‘evidence’.

  13. Camera system they have is joke. If this is what we got for the $$$ from Illinois- American’s donation, what a waste of money. Unless the have changed the system an officer could only “use” it if they were parked directly under it.

  14. The cameras are a joke and are useless. Crooks rob gas stations and other businesses daily and those places have cameras in place. Doesn’t stop them. These cameras were installed by our local politicans as a feel good measure. Sort of “Look! We are doing something about crime, now leave us alone.” All the money that has been spent on cameras, ornamental lights, arbors, renovations of public buildings, and special projects we could have added more police officers to the streets. Oh my God, more police would mean less crime? Say it ain’t so…..

  16. The Sheridan/McClure camera is on the northwest corner pointed at Sheridan Liquors on the southwest corner. The payphones are on the the southeast corner. It might have picked up him running to Sheridan Liquors after being shot but not the shooting.

  17. The police can control where the camera sweeps and it can sweep to the gas station. Web viewers can not do this. It sure as heck could have picked up the shooting but who’s watching?? You? Then you are right as we here on the web only get one view. They are a waste of money.

  18. This shouldn’t be a surprise because as a general rule, violent crime isn’t “deterrable.” White collar crime you can deter with long prison sentences or recording devices or whatnot. But statistically almost nothing helps deter violent crime because people who commit violent crimes aren’t sitting there thinking, “Hm, I am interested in committing a violent crime, but that camera there makes me think this may not be a good idea.” They’re thinking, “I’m going to hit that SOB who just cut me off in traffic.” 99% of the time people don’t burglarize homes or rob convenience stores because they’re reasonable, thoughtful people. Deterrence only works on reasonable, thoughtful people who are interested in being deterred.

    And 90% of the time any government tells you they want to do X to “deter” crime, they’re full of shit. Good education and strong communities deter crime, but you can’t buy those things with a line-item on a city budget and they take several years to get working. Active cop patrols deter a certain amount of crime, but cops cost a lot. Cameras are cheap and most people like the sound of the word “deterrence.” Ah, sound-bite politics.

  19. (Which isn’t to say the cameras can’t be really useful in prosecution after the fact, or even in police response when the dispatchers can see the situation as the cops are driving to the crime and they can have a better idea of how to approach. Just that they don’t really deter.)

  21. What does deter crime is taking those people who commit crimes 1, 2 and 3 and locking them up so they cannot committ crimes 4, 5 and 6.

    If cameras help do this, so be it. Not even a week has passed since this incident. We don’t know everthing the polcei know about the images they have on tape.

    Remember, also that this happened INSIDE. The store is responsible for the quality of it’s own video system

  22. “What does deter crime is taking those people who commit crimes 1, 2 and 3 and locking them up so they cannot committ crimes 4, 5 and 6.”

    In point of fact, it mostly just teaches them to be better criminals. The best training ground for criminal skills in the entire U.S. is any given prison.

    (And to be technical about it, it’s not deterrence if they’re behind bars. That’s prevention. It’s only deterrence if they don’t re-offend once they’re out because they don’t want to go back. And prison is very bad at that in this country. Our recidivism rates are ridiculous.)

  23. same guy got shot again tonight, 2 blocks away in a house well known for problems.

    BTW, Eyebrows, saw your “preppy cutie” tonight. We had a good laugh. He’s a great guy…..

Comments are closed.