More eyes in the skies deter crime, Duluth police hope
August 15, 2012 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Duluth has installed dozens of cameras downtown and on the Lakewalk to keep residents and tourists safe. Continue Reading
More eyes in the skies deter crime, Duluth police hope
25 Comments
Or maybe re-prioritize, pull some guys off pursuing “eeeeeeevil” marijuana duty and put more cops out on patrol?
Eh??? Bueller? Bueller?
Hot debate. What do you think?
31 
34
Just a sad indication of what our society has become. With drugs, crime and vandalism taking over as a way of life with an ever increasing part of Duluth’s populous it seems technology in our only answer for assistance. Again sad, but 1984 is here.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
12
If ya don’t wanna get caught, then don’t do anything to get caught at. I am thankful for the cameras and the potential to keep me safe, or catch anyone who violates or threatens my safety. And good deal if they or other cameras catch motorists who think they have the right to run red lights.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
15
I found it hard to believe that Duluth even had cameras, but then I saw the posted sign a warning to all that they may be under surveilance – now that’s what I expect from Duluth. Let’s have the cameras to deter crime, but let’s make sure everyones (even the criminals) civil liberties are protected by giving them fair warning.
Before I jump to any conclusions, does anybody out there know who requested the money for these camera installs – it came from the council, not the police department. And FYI to the taxpayers of Duluth: someone is making a ton of cash selling and installing 33 cameras for $700,000. These are not transmitting units, as described these are just time lapse recorders that record over old data until a crime is committed and police have to physically go to the mounted unit to download the data. $20,000+ per camera – I don’t think so!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
6
Don, I don’t know where you got your numbers but the original grant money came as part of the Homeland Security program. Phase II came from other grants, not sure Duluth has had a dollar cost. Cost per camera was to be around $7000 with addition cost for monitoring equipment. Systems were to be wireless. Yes, as with all technology it has a huge price..
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
Bob is correct, Duluth qualified for Homeland Security grant because is sea port. Ti’s interesting that the camera’s NOT at the Docks but instead are used to monitor our own citizens and tourists taking a walk on lakewalk. Should make everyone pause and go mmmm? Then again, Homeland Security is all about watching and monitoring us anyway. Dayum shame folks don’t know where concept, name and purpose of Homeland Security originated…sigh.
“You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. “…..Charles Austin Beard
Like or Dislike:
15 
3
Right on fastone ! I was in Washington DC years ago and noticed the following engraved on the entrance to one of the buildings….”"the price of liberty is eternal vigilance”. That has always stuck with me. I know you like quotes from the past….so I thought I’d put one in myself.
If we don’t assert our rights (and I mean all our rights whether they affect us directly or not) as American citizens, we’ll slowly lose them all over time….a little bit at a time.
Actually kind of relates to the Last Place On Earth situation recently. He’s an unsavory character, but that has no bearing on this rights as a citizen. The fact that he’s been served serveral times with search warrants, intensive investigation, testing of his products etc…., and yet, they can’t find anything to charge him with other than a nuisance violation ? They are trying to hound him out of business by throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him since they aparantly have no legal recourse or they would have charged him a lont time ago. That’s flat out wrong !
If they can do it to him, since he’s considered undesirable, they could do it to you or anyone else also if they decided you too were “undesirable”.
If we Americans don’t stay vigilent about our hard fought rights, this place won’t resemble the America our generation was blessed to inherit. We need to think big (macro) when we attempt to solve our myriad problems….not small (micro). In my mind anyway….it’s not worth solving one problem by giving up our rights and/or causing 3 other future problems in the process.
Like or Dislike:
15 
2
When the cameras were first installed, they were touted as a crime deterrent. If memory serves, within weeks, there was a young man severely beaten and robbed, and vandals defaced many of the new, shiny, solar powered trash compactors that the city had just installed as well.
In neither case, did these cameras serve as a deterrent, nor were the images they provided useful enough to identify the suspect.
Whats the bigger deterrent, and which is better suited to provide a description of a suspect?
A camera, that may or may nor actually be pointed in the same general direction as you;
or,
A well trained human being who’s job description is “Protect and Serve”?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
5
Tad, at $100,000 a year per officer per shift per location this would just be impossible. All your stated scenarios still come into play. Sad, but true. Money would be better spend teaching discipline and respect at home and in our schools. Parents and society have to accept accountability.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
6
Bob….my thoughts exactly! Trust and respect have to start at home….and enhanced in school! This has to be nation wide….as folks who come here, collect general assistance, have time to loiter because of no jobs in the area ( or choose not to work )….getting into drugs, mischief, and crime…….this has got to be a nationwide campaign…..and it will take 20-40yrs or more to be effective! ( 1…2 generations or more ) Schools have to add to the trust / respect….by teaching it! Would be nice to bring back the “Pledge to Allegance” in schools again…..it sure would be a good start! RESPECT and CONSIDERATION for others….as well as for one self….. and SOME MANNERS……seems to be SEVERELY LACKING now days!
Like or Dislike:
11 
3
Orwell was right.
Like or Dislike:
16 
6
I would prefer undercover cops and catch the creeps red handed. From what I’ve seen of some security cameras the images can be fairly fuzzy.
Like or Dislike:
16 
5
Maybe we need some cameras at Thompson Hill rest area.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
3
LOL! I had to laugh when I read this! Spot on!!
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
@Bob I’d rather spend $100,000 of taxpayers money on tried and true police enforcement that will actually deter criminals from congregating, than waste $20,000 per camera on system that will not stop crime, nor aid in the apprehension of a criminal.
You get what you pay for, and if the taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill, then we should expect results for our investment, and not false sense of security that we are instead purchasing.
If I buy a product, say a computer, I have an expectation that the computer will perform the tasks that a computer does. I am not going to buy a cardboard box that I can pretend is a computer.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
1
Tad, I see what you allude to but $100,000 of taxpayer dollars would do absolutely nothing for crime prevention on foot patrol. Crime does not pick a certain hour to happen so to cover all areas 24/7/365 your talking millions. Crime was centered in Hillside, increased patrol sent it to West End, then on to West Duluth, even East end. 1990 Duluth had 104 officers, 2012 Duluth has 150. PD budget already is over 18 Million taxpayer dollars. City collects about 14 million in real taxes. Tell me where are you going to come up with say just another million to add only 10 more officers. We do not have a orchard full of money trees here in Duluth.
Banks have had cameras for years, and do catch many of the individuals that rob them. By the way, the photos you see on the news a not the ones the police see…
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Here you go Bob. These are the photos that the Duluth Police Department released to the public to help identify the vandalism suspect.
http://www.northlandsnewscenter.com/news/crime/Help-Identify-This-Suspect-122349674.html
Those are the best images they could provide when they ask the Public to help in the apprehension of a suspect.
All you can say for sure, is that it’s a person shaped figure. That’s real helpful. . .
This system, is a pointless waste of taxpayer money.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
I don’t believe these pictures to be part of the “new” system. But I am not trying to get into a who’s right or wrong here, just the fact we can not afford to have human 24/7/365 coverage anywhere let alone throughout the city. Also once you catch these idiots, the cost of the courts and incarceration.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
I miss the 1800′s…back then we just strung them up. No jury duty or court costs. Life was simpler.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Yeah, Where’s Judge Roy Bean when you need him. lol
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
These seem wasteful and just plain lacking in benefit.
At the sametime, is crime really any worse than it was in say 2002? 1992? 1982? I don’t think it is.
Like or Dislike:
6 
9
got to keep enough officers freed up to handle serious crimes like people of LEGAL age smoking a LEGAL cigarette at a bus stop and other priorities .
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
Sorry I wasn’t more specific Bob. As a federal taxpayer I am concerned that Duluth is foolish enough to blow federal (or state) grant dollars to only get 33 cameras at an overall output of $20,000 each. Chief Roeser implies these cameras are stand alone units and when a crime happens “we can go back to one of these places and pull up a recording”. Stand alone units have a fixed len recorder that covers only one field of view and continually records over its old data. I’ll bet the bank those cameras were installed for no more than $3000 each and the remainder was funneled to some other police account under the guise of homeland security.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
Don…they’re not completely stand alone as are implying…it said right in article…
“So far in Duluth, police don’t regularly monitor the video, although officers can call up video feeds from a particular camera on their desktop computers to help with an investigation.
The department is installing a bank of monitors so police eventually can assign someone to monitor video feeds, as they might do when there is a big event downtown.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip>>>>
That to me would imply they are a little more sophisticated then you are saying and on you saying you bet that money was diverted to other uses. I’ll take that red herring bet and bet you can’t prove your supposition which is actually saying the Police are defrauding Homeland Security.
On point…I think we all can look forward to the day when we can have drone’s patrolling over the Lakewalk because then we’ll know we’re really safe.
“Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither”…Benjamin Franklin
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
Don, I think Officer Roeser’s choice of words has confused issue. Going to tape were met because today no one is actually monitoring them, so the PD would have to replay from computer, may even have access in squads, of the event for information.
Fed’s spent money stupid, put when they hand it over for a project they make sure all the t’ are crossed and I’s are doted.
End result is we are in a sad moment of our history…!
Like or Dislike:
3 
3