Slashdot Mirror


California Mayors Demand Surveillance Cams On Crime-Ridden Highways (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader shares an Ars Technica report: The 28 shootings along a 10-mile stretch of San Francisco-area highway over the past six months have led mayors of the adjacent cities to declare that these "murderous activities" have reached "crisis proportions." Four people have been killed and dozens injured. These five mayors want California Gov. Jerry Brown to fund surveillance cameras along all the on and off ramps of Interstate 80 and Highway 4 along the cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Richmond, San Pablo, and Pinole.

137 comments

  1. Still not enough justification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surveillance is not going to stop road rage.

    1. Re:Still not enough justification by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      The cameras won't have enough sensitivity to produce usable images. The perps are likely on foot . These places are "bad neighborhoods". Your welfare dollars at work.

    2. Re:Still not enough justification by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      Surveillance is not going to stop road rage.

      No, but marijuana legalization should help. We'll see what happens after November 8th.

    3. Re:Still not enough justification by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The perps are likely on foot .

      That should make them easier to spot when they climb the sound walls to get a shot at the freeway.

    4. Re:Still not enough justification by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You think these gangs are shooting each over pot?

    5. Re:Still not enough justification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to climb the sound wall. You just walk up an on-ramp. That is probably why they want cameras at the on-ramps.

    6. Re:Still not enough justification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably not. But if everyone's high maybe they won't be so inclined to murder each other?

    7. Re: Still not enough justification by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      Agreed -- surveillance cameras the governments buy nearly always has horrible resolution they get the cheapest cameras (so they can pocket some of the money) because here are no quality standards.

    8. Re:Still not enough justification by r1348 · · Score: 2

      My educated guess is that these gangs already have access to all the pot they want.

    9. Re:Still not enough justification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who lives in Colorado, no it won't. It'll probably make it worse cuz those dumb shits get stoned out of their gored and then go drive down I25 at 20 MPH, not exactly behavior that's endearing to those of us with brains in our heads.

    10. Re: Still not enough justification by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

      probaly started with some ransom psycho and now they got copycat psychoes to deal with. Gangs usualy sell drugs, or shoot rivals/people that crossed them, or those believed to be a fake (wearing gang paraphanelia when not in the gang) or a snitch, not sit on the side of the freeway randomly shooting people.

    11. Re:Still not enough justification by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      You think these gangs are shooting each over pot?

      No, but a joint should help calm people down. I have never seen a stoner "rage" about anything.

      But these shootings are not about "road rage" anyway. They are targeted gang shootings. Innocent people are caught in the crossfire, but they are not the intended targets.

      There are a lot of myths about gangs, and one of them is that they are needlessly violent toward the general public. That is nonsense. They are business enterprises, and nearly all their violence is directed at competitors.

    12. Re:Still not enough justification by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That is probably why they want cameras at the on-ramps.

      This is for more money for traffic control in the name of crime prevention? That figures.

    13. Re:Still not enough justification by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Surveillance is not going to stop road rage.

      No, but marijuana legalization should help. We'll see what happens after November 8th.

      Wishful thinking that a majority can legalize grass.

      Washington state voted that way 4 years ago, and it hasn't shown up yet.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Few weeks ago they argued over store locations, no results; so are now taking a few months to renew an approach - it's endless foot dragging.

    14. Re:Still not enough justification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your are misinformed, I work in Gang Prevention (yes, a misnomer), and initiate gangsters definitely hurt/kill non gang members, it's a part of proving themselves to gain membership.

    15. Re:Still not enough justification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see your unsourced claims and raise you sourced ones.

      Although our society has substantial
      basis for fearing the violence of certain
      gangs, most gang violence is directed at
      other gangs. Of nearly 1,000 gang-related
      homicides in Chicago from 1987 to 1994,
      75 percent were intergang, 11 percent
      were intragang, and 14 percent involved
      nongang victims murdered by gang members
      (Block et al., 1996).
      My shit came from a study.
      https://secure.ce-credit.com/articles/101181/167249.pdf

    16. Re:Still not enough justification by imidan · · Score: 1

      Washington state voted that way 4 years ago, and it hasn't shown up yet.

      I guess you're not from around here? There are three recreational marijuana stores within just a few miles of my office. In Washington State. They've been open and doing business for months.

    17. Re:Still not enough justification by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Wishful thinking that a majority can legalize grass.

      Shit, you need to go tell those merry fuckers in Colorado. They've been happily smoking legal recreational weed for a couple years now. Crime is down and Denver is booming.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  2. How about by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Withholding federal funding for "sanctuary cities"?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:How about by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You're confusing these East Bay cities with San Francisco.

    2. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, we could just withhold money from the feds so that they can't deport people all the time.

    3. Re:How about by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're confusing these East Bay cities with San Francisco.

      No, the confusion is between San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay Area. These cities are certainly in the SF Bay Area.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re: How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling Richmond a sanctuary city... That's a first.

      In Richmond, forget the doors and windows, they just put bars around entire houses.

    5. Re: How about by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      "Just" -- I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    6. Re:How about by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      These cities are certainly in the SF Bay Area.

      Sure, but SF is where people seek sanctuary. Oakland is where from people seeking sanctuary are coming from.

      Going from SF to Oakland is like going from El Paso to Juarez.

    7. Re:How about by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      No, the confusion is between San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay Area.

      That's like claiming that Silicon Valley and San Francisco are the same place despite being 50 miles apart. They're not. Same region, yes. But not the same place. Not every place in California is a sanctuary city.

    8. Re:How about by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Oakland is where from people seeking sanctuary are coming from.

      Hipsters are seeking sanctuary from San Francisco real estate prices by buying homes in Oakland.

    9. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Found the liberal faggot!

    10. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the deluded redneck asshole.

    11. Re:How about by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      That's like claiming that Silicon Valley and San Francisco are the same place despite being 50 miles apart. They're not. Same region, yes. But not the same place. Not every place in California is a sanctuary city.

      WTF has being a "sanctuary city" got to do with anything? There is no sanctuary for gang-related crime.

      Silicon Valley is definitely in the SF Bay Area also. A quick look at a map and you would see that Richmond, San Jose and many other cities have shorelines on the SF Bay.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    12. Re:How about by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The bay area as a whole is a little nuts.

      But SF is off the hook, batshit insane, loony left. The further you get away, the more sanity returns. (In general and Locally, LA has plenty of it's own insanity.)

      The computer revolution _could not_ have happened in SF proper.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'll give you "redneck asshole". Proud to be an American. But deluded? No, that's reserved for the drooling liberals who actually think gun banning/confiscation would accomplish anything other than civil war and/or ensuring the only folks that have guns are the real terrorists and criminals. No, thanks. If I wanted to be a victim I'd move to Europe with the rest of the castrated PC apologists.

    14. Re: How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Richmond, forget the doors and windows, they just put bars around entire houses.

      Wow! A wet bar around every house. Tell me more...

    15. Re:How about by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      What is wrong with deporting people? It is not like they have any right to be here and they are breaking the law to boot. Would you prefer they are incarcerated for several years first and then allowed to apply to be legally here?

      Anyways, that is neither here nor there. The shootings aren't likely being done by most of the illegals. It is more likely either gang related or some perverted individuals trying their hand at terrorism. Most terrorist in the U.S. arrived legally either by birth or the legal immigration process. Some overstayed their welcome but I'm not positive to the numbers.

    16. Re:How about by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is it that all gun grabbing liberals eventually express concern about someone's penis size when they realize their arguments fail? Is that the real agenda or something? Is it an issue where you feel you cannot address it while they have what you think is compensating for their size?

    17. Re:How about by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "They're not the problem. It's the NRA members that are buying all the guns. "

      I wish they were, because then we could get rid of the gang problem. But the guns are more likely to be going to the cartelistas. Watch them make the Bay Area into the world they left behind in the Old Country. San Franciscans will soon be wishing they had the nerds back again.

    18. Re: How about by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      So you are obsessed with some other guy's penis size because you are jealous that they have dealt with it differently than you approve?

      Why don't you just jump in and tell them it is already big enough and you are satisfied with the size so you are mad they are in your view compensating for.

      Btw, you don't know shit when it comes to owning a gun. People own them for all sorts of reasons and my favorite is because they can. That is all the reasoning you need to be concerned with. So why don't you just ignore my penis and worry about other things.

    19. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised you weren't too busy cleaning your metallic penis collection to post.

    20. Re:How about by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      And why does that excite you so much that you have to strike up a conversation with me?

      This is really weird. Here we have a story and surveillance because sickos are killing people and you are concerned about my penis and what reminds you of a penis.

      Oh well. I guess everyone has their thing. I got mine too. I always say that the only thing more beautiful than a naked woman is a naked woman with a gun.

    21. Re:How about by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      WTF has being a "sanctuary city" got to do with anything?

      Take it up with the original poster — as I did.

      Silicon Valley is definitely in the SF Bay Area also.

      Right, but that wasn't my point. Whenever the news media or a movie has Silicon Valley as a focus, San Francisco is inevitably shown. If you watch "The Internship," San Francisco was a Google bike ride away from Silicon Valley. Most people outside of the SF Bay Area are surprised to discover that Silicon Valley and San Francisco are 50 miles apart. Born and raise in Silicon Valley, this has always been my pet peeve.

    22. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not the problem. It's the NRA members that are buying all the guns. This problem won't be fixed until we go door to door and collect all of those things.

      You and Adolf Hitler and Joe Stalin.

      Nice company you keep.

    23. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While quite populist that would be worse than useless. Part of the point of sanctuary cities is so the undocumented populace is willing to cooperate with the police. Remove that and suddenly your tips and witnesses dry up as they don't want to risk deportation on top of retaliation for "snitching".

    24. Re: How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most gays are liberals. Does the interest in your size make more sense now?

    25. Re:How about by tsotha · · Score: 1

      It's projection.

  3. How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I see no problem with surveillance cameras on public roads. There is no expectation of privacy there, and there's a legitimate reason for the cameras to be there. Lots of highways have cameras, if nothing else to monitor road conditions. This isn't news for nerds, stuff that matters. It's a non-issue.

    1. Re:How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by chipschap · · Score: 1

      Really, why is this on /. ? What's next, results of the pie eating contest?

    2. Re: How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chances are, they'll collect license plate meta-data with all these cameras, as they've provably done elsewhere. These are major highways in these cities, 80 goes across the entire continent.

      Does preventing a surveillance state matter to you?

    3. Re: How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a "News for Libertarians" site.

    4. Re: How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Hate to break it to you, but traffic cameras already capture license plate data - not just meta-data.

    5. Re:How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Well now, Mr. 1,444,407, clearly you have been around a long time and know all about what matters at Slashdot.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    6. Re:How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Posted here. So what's your point?

    7. Re:How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Well now, Mr. 1,444,407, clearly you have been around a long time and know all about what matters at Slashdot.

      Not if he thinks the pie eating contest isn't "stuff that matters", he doesn't.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    8. Re:How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by geekmux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see no problem with surveillance cameras on public roads. There is no expectation of privacy there, and there's a legitimate reason for the cameras to be there. Lots of highways have cameras, if nothing else to monitor road conditions. This isn't news for nerds, stuff that matters. It's a non-issue.

      Oh, you see no issue? OK, let me explain how this is going to work. By claiming that current traffic cameras aren't "good enough" to catch criminals, they'll justify that "top-notch" next-gen camera tech while pinky swearing that they won't abuse it.

      Phase One will consist of cameras equipped with night vision, and powerful enough to capture you texting while driving to receive that ticket in the mail automagically. Phase Two upgrades will consist of radar/laser tech for "traffic integrity" to ticket anyone speeding 3MPH over the limit, along with FLIR to ticket HOV-lane abusers. Phase Three upgrades will consist of license plate scanners to "catch criminals", while all of that captured data is sold to private companies that pay to know the location of 25 - 35 year old drivers for marketing purposes. Suddenly, the whole damn thing has ZERO to do with its original purpose.

      Oh, and regardless of obvious revenue streams, they'll still want to charge an extra half-percent tax to pay for this, resulting in dozens of "administrators" being hired while outsourcing this entire solution to the group who bought the most politician palm grease. Ah, nothing like integrity and fairness when choosing state-sponsored solution providers.

      Now perhaps you'll understand why this is here on Slashdot. Privacy is eroding daily these days, and cameras probably won't do much to truly prevent this type of crime (the criminals will simply move to where the cameras aren't), but it will certainly be ripe for abuses, as my examples show. Yes, we should look to reduce crime. We should NOT look to become a police state in order to do that. No point in calling it "freedom" if you're watched like a criminal at all times.

    9. Re:How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Phase 1 and Phase 2 sound wonderful, when can they install them?

      Phase 3 sounds like it's DoA. There's no marketing reason to know which road a driver of a certain road uses unless it's for generic city planning, in which case it's already done anyway. As for the rest of the important information, they have that already and can sell that whenever they want. Nothing scary from the cameras here.

      No on the flip side I live in a country where there are automated are everywhere in the city and highway complete with license scanners. They don't get us for texting (yet) but they do a wonderful job of finding stolen vehicles, registration checks, insurance checks, environmental checks, and they monitor traffic continuously with great fidelity too, i.e. if someone has a flat and pulls over on the side of the highway to change his tire they automatically shutdown or speed limit the right most lane. We also get up to the minute traffic reports and very accurate predictions of how long a delay is should one arise.

      The good outweighs your scary marketing scenario by a wide margin.

    10. Re:How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by chipschap · · Score: 1

      I realize I haven't been around here as long as many, but it seems to be quite a number of years now, although I can't seem to locate the exact date that I joined. I know 1,444,407 is not exactly a low user number.

      I've certainly been here long enough to know that in past years, stories for /. seemed in general more relevant. This is not intended to be my source for general news.

    11. Re:How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by chipschap · · Score: 1

      Looks like I joined in early 2009, something over 7 years ago, based on the date of my first comment posted.

    12. Re:How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The reason it is on, is all about extent. So some cameras at a few critical traffic locations versus entire stretches of road covered and the extension of that, all public roads covered with cameras and microphones. So from a tech standpoint, how do you manage and maintain that, installation, servicing and replacement. Now add in monitoring it all, so live monitoring from a safety standpoint or recording simply to arrest people after the fact or variant combination, the panopticon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., in all public places. Perhaps speakers and projectors so that a control officer can issue directions and warnings to those being controlled and monitored. Real rich versus poor stuff, one monitored for their safety and the other monitored to control them. I will make things very interesting for say, police officers, always being monitored and recorded on public streets but the street surveillance system. The the question, as a public utility, do the public have a right to access it (say live camera view to a mobile phone, don't naysay that though, some good example, availability of parking, hazard at intended location, weather at the beach). So some real interesting tech problems and uses beyond total control by the state.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    13. Re:How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no marketing reason to know which road a driver of a certain road uses

      Are you retarded? There are three very obvious ones.

      1. Knows driving habits of x age group

      2. Moves ads/billboards for most effectiveness, changes costs of certain billboards.

      3. Realizes what optimal store locations are for different target markets to drive by and visit.

      And don't you think for a *second* that won't be the rationale.

    14. Re:How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "automagically" - I don't know if that was a typo, or the best new word I learned.

    15. Re:How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a typo, I have been using it for a while.

    16. Re:How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no objections to these cameras, so long as there are no records of non-illegal activities or of persons not committing an illegal act.

    17. Re:How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, many billboards are giant TV screens now. Imagine driving down the highway and every billboard you pass is targeted to you specifically.

    18. Re:How is this news for nerds stuff that matters? by methylx · · Score: 1

      Yea, what he said.

  4. The tried and true "whack-a-mole" strategy by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    Putting cameras on I-80 may deter shootings on the highway but I'm guessing the bullets will start pop-pop-popping up somewhere else.

    1. Re:The tried and true "whack-a-mole" strategy by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Putting cameras on I-80 may deter shootings on the highway but I'm guessing the bullets will start pop-pop-popping up somewhere else.

      Most crime is opportunistic, not planned. If you remove the opportunity, you prevent the crime. There is no "law of conservation of crime", so better deterrence does not cause a fixed amount of crime to shift to other areas. The opposite is true: Lower crime in one area allows resources to be refocused in other areas, and lower crime leads to a positive feedback loop of economic recovery, more jobs, and stronger communities, in both the immediate area, and in surrounding neighborhoods.

    2. Re:The tried and true "whack-a-mole" strategy by fnj · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Most crime is opportunistic, not planned. If you remove the opportunity, you prevent the crime. There is no "law of conservation of crime", so better deterrence does not cause a fixed amount of crime to shift to other areas. The opposite is true: Lower crime in one area allows resources to be refocused in other areas, and lower crime leads to a positive feedback loop of economic recovery, more jobs, and stronger communities, in both the immediate area, and in surrounding neighborhoods.

      It sure must be nice living in whatever imaginary world you inhabit.

    3. Re:The tried and true "whack-a-mole" strategy by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      Somebody picking up a wallet they see on the street and keeping it would be a crime of opportunity. Shooting someone dead is not.

    4. Re:The tried and true "whack-a-mole" strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most -criminals- are opportunistic, you mean. If you remove the opportunity in one area, the criminals will just move on to the next [likely adjacent] area with better opportunities. There is no "law of conservation of crime", but when the same criminals are doing the same things a block or two over... it looks pretty much like the same thing.

    5. Re:The tried and true "whack-a-mole" strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but I'm guessing the bullets will start pop-pop-popping up somewhere else.

      Hopefully, back to the crime-ridden, shitty neighborhoods the gang filth come from.

    6. Re:The tried and true "whack-a-mole" strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought for sure you'd end with "Trump 2016!"

    7. Re:The tried and true "whack-a-mole" strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, that's the foundation of criminal justice.

    8. Re:The tried and true "whack-a-mole" strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure there isn't a "law of conservation of crime." It may not be an immutable law, but we have had crime since man began so there is certainly some level of crime which must occur. It may fluctuate, but statistically speaking there has always been crime. Maybe if we had a global Minority Report-type world we could say there is no such law.

      Anyway, that is a side note. My real concern was you saying crime is only opportunistic. My experience has been different. In the short-term this may be true, but in the long term I don't think so. Criminals certainly plan and many do so throughout their whole lives. A heavily-fortified bank vault isn't what I would call a opportunistic target, yet some will still break-in.

      Additionally, law enforcement/cities/counties know if you have a long-standing reputation for being proactive and aggressive with the criminal types, the criminals will move themselves to areas with less law enforcement presence. When the criminals cross the jurisdictional/fiscal border into another area the original proactive jurisdiction doesn't follow them. They are now some other agency's problem and the other agency can spend their limited tax dollars on dealing with them. What typically happens is an agency with more money to spend on enforcement will displace the criminals to the poorer communities. Your feedback loop operates in a negative fashion, not a positive one. The end result is a community which was already economically challenged has to deal with an influx of criminals and can't. The quality of life for everyone spirals down which encourages further problems. Not all cases, but this scenario certainly exist all across the USA. This concept can be read about in law enforcement writings.

    9. Re:The tried and true "whack-a-mole" strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Hillary supporter. If you can't already tell, no party does more to try and keep blacks "on the plantation" than the D's.

  5. An FBI Ruse To Track Timmy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Timmy (Timothy Donald Cook, CEO, Apple Inc.) pissed off some many people with his stupid self-righteous indignation about digital privacy and encryption that every police department in California has partnered with the local FBI and national FBI to track Timmy 24/7 to get the real dirt that he is hiding!

    Ha ha

    1. Re:An FBI Ruse To Track Timmy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FBI to track Timmy 24/7 to get the real dirt that he is hiding!

      Just wait until they find out he is gay. Then they'll have him.

  6. California Uber Alles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just going to leave this here

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Relivant Dead Kennedys is relivant

    captcha: nations

  7. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Surveillance Cams On Crime-Ridden Highways

    That means they're going to do something about civil forfeiture, right?

  8. Find the real reason for the shootings by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

    How about doing some real detective work and finding the real reason why people are doing the shootings? Putting up cameras will just making finding the people responsible easier after the fact. Sure the article says the shootings may be gang related but I find it may be hard to believe that the gangs are just going out to the highway and taking random pot shots. One would hope that after 28 shootings the police would be a lot more proactive but alas that seems to be too much to ask today.

    1. Re:Find the real reason for the shootings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure the article says the shootings may be gang related but I find it may be hard to believe that the gangs are just going out to the highway and taking random pot shots.

      No, they're firing at rival gang members. Chicago has the same problem.

      The Chicago Police Department said it will dispatch detectives to every expressway shooting scene to assist state troopers in their investigations — an acknowledgment that gangs are taking their violent clashes from the city streets to the expressways.

      “A lot of these expressway shootings go from verbal confrontations that happen inside the city and then the folks involved get on the expressways and go after each other,” said Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson.

    2. Re:Find the real reason for the shootings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Surely this can be solved by making the highways a gun-free zone.

    3. Re:Find the real reason for the shootings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's considered racist to be proactive. The gang members aren't white.

    4. Re:Find the real reason for the shootings by golodh · · Score: 1
      @Anonymous Coward

      Err ... solved? What's there to be solved? Is there a problem?

      Surely people can bring their second-amendment firearm with them in the car? They'll be able to protect themselves. If everyone did that, shooters would have no chance, right?

      So if you think there is some kind of problem here, what you want is to write in-car guns into the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations as mandatory piece of safety equipment. Body armour is optional (since you might prefer to armour your car instead).

      There. Your little problem solved in a way you'll like!

    5. Re:Find the real reason for the shootings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Removing the on-ramps from the neighborhoods where the gang members live might work.

    6. Re:Find the real reason for the shootings by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      How about doing some real detective work and finding the real reason why people are doing the shootings?

      I thought that's how Americans said hello?

    7. Re:Find the real reason for the shootings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... second-amendment firearm with them in the car

      Only Americans say: Right to bear arms == Right to kill.

      Why carry weapons if one isn't allowed kill? The point, remember, was to fight the government; a laughable idea given modern armies. Nowhere in the US constitution, nor the bill of rights, does it give Americans the right to kill criminals, cult leaders, or their neighbours.

      Yes, the courts allow the right to defense and yes, that works only when one uses more force than the attacker. Only in America is one entitled to murder someone for climbing through a window. Even that was legally granted as recently as 2008. Will the courts extend that right to the personal car? It's a difficult question given a criminal won't be climbing through a car window.

      ... mandatory piece of safety equipment

      While I like the pop-up, car-mounted gun shown in 'Captain America: Winter soldier' (2014), It would need to be child-proof for use in a personal car. Of course, declaring a weapon as "safety equipment" only proves my point, because it equates being safe with murdering others. No, a bullet-proof car is safety equipment. A car with a pop-up gun is a tool for mass murder.

    8. Re:Find the real reason for the shootings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Putting up cameras will just making finding the people responsible easier after the fact"

      Unless the car they're driving is stolen.
      Unless they have enough snap to shoot out the cameras.
      Unless they just move off the freeway and shoot each other elsewhere.
      ( Of course 28 shootings and only four killed means those cameras are probably pretty safe. What they need are shooting lessons apparently. )
      Oh. . . how are all those gun laws out there in CA working out for you ? Stopping crime is it ? :|

      Will the cameras come back down when the shootings stop ? Or will we use the same logic and just go all UK on everyone and put a camera on every corner ? After all, if we put cameras up EVERYWHERE, criminals will have nowhere to commit crimes :| Then again, police will probably hate that more than we do considering their typical behavior these days.

    9. Re:Find the real reason for the shootings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      germ-free zone?

    10. Re:Find the real reason for the shootings by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Just remove ALL the on-ramps. PROBLEM SOLVED!

    11. Re:Find the real reason for the shootings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      detective work only works on niggerlicious tv series

      what happens in the real world is tons of people watch too much csi jew york, people get into forensics in college, and in the end they have to manufacture the evidence in trials because the fucking real world is not a niggerlicious tv show

      thats why the need cameras inside of your anus, because mit niggers from cia cant see SHIT without the botnet, less so fat, human-donut looking cops

    12. Re:Find the real reason for the shootings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure the article says the shootings may be gang related but I find it may be hard to believe that the gangs are just going out to the highway and taking random pot shots..

      Why is that hard to believe. There are gangs where the initiation rite is to perform acts of violence on random citizens.

  9. Illegals have a lower crime rate by aepervius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Look it put. All statistic point out that illegals have a lower crime rate than naturally born American. So what would really effectively lowering funding for sanctuary cities do ? If anything if illegals are replaced by naturally born American in those cities, then crime rate would rise. The sad truth is that if you want to lower crime rate, then you better look at program which will help reintegration of ex-con and programs which helps the local find better paid job above minimum wage.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Illegals have a lower crime rate by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      ...and yet, the locals will never find a better paid job above minimum wage as long as our elites keep importing millions of illiterate third-world peasants. Let's help them get back home and then millions of low wage jobs will open up for our own people. We'd even be able to improve these jobs because the employers wouldn't be able to hold the workers' feet to the fire. They'd pay more and the working conditions would be better, and corporations would have to take this out of their already sky-high profits. We have to worry about our own people first. The illegals have had a nice, long visit but now it's time to go home.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Illegals have a lower crime rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bull fucking shit. Illegals are 100% criminals by their very definition.

    3. Re: Illegals have a lower crime rate by jmcvetta · · Score: 2

      In Soviet America, everyone is a criminal!

    4. Re:Illegals have a lower crime rate by dywolf · · Score: 2

      Immigrants, undocumented or otherwise, tend to be either very low skilled or very high skilled. Day laborers and janitors, and doctors and professors, etc.
      And because americans tend to be neither, but rather tend to be in the middle, neither very low skilled no highly skilled, because that's what our schools and economy excel at cranking out.

      so the graphs of the two workforces (if plotted as population vs labor skill level) are total opposites, and the result of their combination is that they don't take our jobs, rather they only ever compliment the American workforce. and suddenly removing them wont lead to suddenly employing more American citizens.

      and that's before considering that with unemployment now going well below 5% we're getting very close to maximum employment (much lower is actually a negative for the economy as it indicates several undesirable things, such as lack of employment mobility or opportunity, most which indicate or lead to economic stagnation).

      and all of that is completely ignoring the massive economic stimulus from their presence (~10% of the US economy), let alone the tax dollars they contribute at all levels (fed, state, local) without receiving nearly any benefit in turn (~11 billion$ a year).

      removing them only hurts our economy, not helps it.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  10. RESOLUTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The term you are looking for is resolution. Sensitivity is for SJW on the prowl.

  11. Not in New Hampshire there aren't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There were cameras installed in New Hampshire and the people became incensed when they learned about the actions of bureaucrats. We got new legislation passed which banned cameras. That is government ones. They've even been taken down now.

    If you don't want to live under an authoritarian hell hell hole dictatorship we have to stop putting up with this BS. If you think we can live without abusive police and violence against the people come to New Hampshire. Liberty-minded people are making a home here and we've got thousands of migrants to the cause already. I moved in March and there are lots of people coming. All over southern New Hampshire there are activist centers and meet ups multiple times a week. Even nightly.

    We're pushing for legalization of weed, elimination of things like drivers licenses, vehicular registration, license plates (of which none of these things will make us any safer and are more or less just another tax and means of control, we already don't require car insurance in NH and the world hasn't ended), reduction of or elimination of police (there are better systems we're already developing to deal with threats and other matters, see cell 411), tax payer funded public schools (not that we are against assisting those in need, but we don't need the government doing that), pro-gun (hardly conservative), pro-gay (against the concept of state marriage, but otherwise supporting equal rights for gays to marry, etc), etc.

    1. Re:Not in New Hampshire there aren't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The elimination of driver licenses and vehicle registration, huh? What you see as mere taxes and oppression also serve to create accountability. I don't think the average person wants to live in a society where somebody could commit a crime on camera and just drive off confidently because there is no system of registration in place to associate the vehicle with a person. I'm sure your movement could get people behind sensible reforms, but your current position is extremist, unreasonable, and ridiculous. You seem to want to live in an anarchistic every-man-for-himself world--one that removes all the benefits of a society along with the drawbacks. Go buy yourself and island or STFU.

  12. I know someone who drives this section by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    She says that it's apparently gang initiation stuff (or perhaps that's what the media is telling her) but it doesn't sound particularly nice. A lot of "shoot the random person from the overpass, to prove you're gangster"
    Who knows what the truth is but they need to nail the people doing it.

    1. Re:I know someone who drives this section by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Yep! To join the gang, they have to kill the first person who flashes their lights at them. Then they have to drink a Snapple bottle that depicts a Klan lynching, and forward a mail from Bill Gates 10 times to receive a $200 gift certificate.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  13. It's the Bay Area. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure the cameras can produce perfectly usable footage of cars moving at 2mph.

    1. Re: It's the Bay Area. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of these cities are in the bay area

    2. Re: It's the Bay Area. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, you're not in the Bay Area.

  14. It's not road rage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's gangs. Surveillance is not the answer. Pot legalization will take *some* of the revenue from the gangs, but not all. Also, if alcohol prohibition is our guide, the gangs won't just leave or turn legit. They'll actually get worse as they compete for their slice of a smaller vice pie, and we can't legalize all vice such as human traffic and sexual abuse of minors.

    You see gang activity all over California. In my neck of the woods, there's a tag war of Nortenos vs. Surenos. I have taken to calling these tags "Trump campaign signs".

    1. Re:It's not road rage by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      "we can't legalize all vice such as human traffic and sexual abuse of minors." oh, we COULD. It's just that even Libertarians aren't ready to go that far yet.

    2. Re:It's not road rage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just give the abused people the right to murder their captors. I'm sure that couldn't go wrong!

  15. Your gov't is not my gov't by BlytheBowman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your country probaly dosen't have a vast gulag prison system, over 2 million people behind bars, or police that dress in heavy body armor, carry big and powerful guns, and burst in homes (no knock) and kill children because they raided the wrong house two doors down from the person growing pot or they were acting on an anonymous "tip". I don't trust the US gov't enough for me to believe they should have these kinds of toys.

    1. Re: Your gov't is not my gov't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So youre saying you live in some sort of dystopian third world shithole then ?

      Because thats exactly what it sounds like to me. Glad some of you are finally admitting it.

    2. Re: Your gov't is not my gov't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people here have been saying that for a very long time. You simply haven't been listening.

    3. Re:Your gov't is not my gov't by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Actually our prison system is in dire straights for all the right reasons.

      But yes I do agree with you. Some power in the hands of fine enforcement agencies is good. Lots of power in the hands of martial law is not.

    4. Re:Your gov't is not my gov't by tsotha · · Score: 1

      The people behind bars in the US belong there. In California we ran out of jail space years ago, so someone who'd been drinking the Kool-aid had the idea we could free up a bunch of beds by letting out all the nonviolent criminals. When they actually went through the paperwork they couldn't find enough people to materially affect the shortage, which is why they're letting out violent offenders now.

    5. Re:Your gov't is not my gov't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people behind bars in the US belong there.

      '

      Which means, when you consider the highest per-capita incarceration rate than anywhere else and the high crime rate, that the US has the scummiest, most criminal population on Earth?

    6. Re:Your gov't is not my gov't by tsotha · · Score: 1

      No, not really. There are places that allow criminals to prey on the population, and there are places that just kill you if you're inconvenient. The US is neither of those.

  16. Where in the world is the next Adolf Hitler hiding by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

    Could he be in Europe? Or maybe the United States, Canada or even Latin America? Asia, Africa or maybe in Antartica? Think and think this through

  17. Gang Related, not random by amxcoder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This has been a more recent problem, and it IS gang related. Some relevant information about the problem... there are 2 feuding gangs, one from Richmond, and another from Vallejo that are having some kind of feud between each other (don't know which specific gangs). The corridor of the freeway and towns mentioned are for the most part, all the towns in the stretch between these two locations. El Cerrito is just West of Richmond, and if you travel east, there is Richmond, San Pablo, El Sobrante, Pinole, Hercules, Rodeo, Crocket, and then the bridge with Vallejo on the other side. The majority of these shootings are happening mostly at night, not during normal driving hours and almost all of them have been in this specific corridor (with a couple outliers happening near Berkeley).

    These are NOT people on foot taking pot-shots at passing cars or anything of the like. These are mostly targeted, and are between multiple cars on the road, not on foot, so the perpetrators shoot and then just drive away and get off the freeway down the road. In some of these cases, one gang will in Richmond will spot a rival gang member on their turf, and chase/follow them, until the rival members gets on the freeway toward vallejo and the ensuing shooting occurs on the freeway. I think most of the shootings that I'm aware of, have happened on the East bound side, which indicates travel from Richmond toward Vallejo.

    I've also heard rumors that one of the reasons the shootings have moved to the freeways, and the 2 gangs are attacking there is because the freeway does not have any "Shot-Spotter" system installed, which some of these cities in that corridor of the freeway do. I don't know if this is accurate, but it does make some sense. So in other words, if one gang intends to attack another gang IN Richmond, the shot-spotter system would detect it and they have a more likely chance of getting caught. If they follow the person onto the freeway, then open fire on them, then the Shot-Spotter systems are useless. So this could already be a case of one "safety system" pushing the violence out of the area where it has naturally occurred in the past, to a new area that does not have the same "safety system". So there is the real possibility that putting some system in place on the freeway will just push it somewhere else, maybe a worse place (for those not involved).

    1. Re:Gang Related, not random by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shooting on the west bound side is a no go for anyone with a bit of sense who doesn't want to get caught up in traffic. (even at 2 am 880 has enough cars to impede a high speed dash). East bound there are a ton of places (orchards, etc) to hide out until the heat is off.

  18. Re:Where in the world is the next Adolf Hitler hid by vandelais · · Score: 1, Funny

    Trump Tower?

    --
    Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
  19. We are talking niggers here, right ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Or is it spic gangstas too ?

    The reason why the european nations (and australia japan and new zealand) were utopias when compared to the US is just that....no niggers.

    Australia is the US with no niggers or spics, just decent white folk. Of course, over the last 20 or so years even the euros and aussies have succumbed to the PC movement and have opened up to tje brown skinned hordes, and are starting to resemble the US more and more every day. Look at Iceland and Finland or Sweden. Nice places full of white people that let the shitskins in and next thing its rising crime, rapes through the roof, drugs and violence.

    Its a pity the US cant just get rid of all its subhumans. Itd be a perfect place to live then, instead of one of the worst.

    1. Re:We are talking niggers here, right ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, hear. Anybody can look at television programmes, newspapers and films from 1960 America and see that it was an infinitely better place to live then, than it is now, surrounded by hate-filled non-white PARASITES, who do little other than scream "racist" at white people all day. Why are you here if you think we are so 'mean' to you? Because you're all worthless PARASITES, leeching off white people. It's all going to end very, very soon, beginning with Trump's election to the Presidency, and then all the other white countries will start electing right wing leaders and finally exile the JEW for the 110th time. 110 and never again.

    2. Re:We are talking niggers here, right ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW. No wonder you posted AC. That is some rant my.

      Your argument however has very little to do with race and everything to do with culture and income inequality.

      Good luck in life, you are truly going to need it.

  20. Will it PREVENT a crime? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    I would say that these cameras do far less to prevent a crime before it occurs than they do to catch and convict the perp after the damage is done assuming that the video footage is clear enough that a jury of 12 morons can make it out.
    It's the same with far too many laws and illustrates the problem with politicians trying to do anything about crime. All they care about is being able to say that they did something as opposed to nothing therefore they should be reelected. There are already plenty of simple methods that would work and they usually involve increased police patrols.

  21. Same in Chicago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We have been having these shooting on our expressways in Chicago for the past 5 months. This is a trend. Gangs follow cars onto the highway, and shoot, and the getaway is easy vs. doing it on the side streets in the neighborhood.

  22. Mark This Day by davesays · · Score: 2

    Sumdumass rightfully calls out what from this day forward will be known as "the straw-penis" argument!

  23. Their Gun Control Isn't Working by Danilushka · · Score: 2

    Despite California having some of the most Draconian gun control law in the US, their murder rate is still higher than Western states with far fewer gun laws: OR, WA, UT, MT, WY. ND, SD, CO and TX and they are closely tied with AZ. So it is becoming clear with this move that they are want to disarm the citizens and promote the Bog-Brother State, so It isn't about guns, it is about the state versus liberty after all.

  24. In soviet russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They strapped huge guns on to their tanks.

    In modern Russia they all have dash cams.

    Some of the footage is shocking. Tanks driving through highways. Tbones. People jumping into the freeway. Bikes being crushed.

    Want safety? Get dash cams for all cars. The idiots with guns will stop once they realise that they will end up on youtube.

  25. But not by the definition of crime impacting us by aepervius · · Score: 2

    You are intentionally misconstruing the argument or intentionally misstating the difference between the criminal those statistic tracks and illegally being in the US, whichever you should never have been modded insightful. They are illegal and criminal for immigration laws. But looking at violent and petty crime, theft, murder, rape, drug trafficking, prostitution and all that jazz which really count when speaking of a tract of land with too many shooting they have lower rate than the average American. You may not LIKE that fact , and it is certainly an inconvenient fact for many people especially those liking trumps, but it stays a statistical verifiable fact.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:But not by the definition of crime impacting us by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Are they more or less likely to commit crimes that matter than legal immigrants? If so, we should stop illegal immigration and vastly expand the legal routes.

    2. Re:But not by the definition of crime impacting us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got a citation? Also petty crimes are likely not prosecuted as simple deportation is more expedient. Also it's harder to catch people with no published address who can flee abroad to escape local scrutiny. Illegal immigration is a crime so should be counted. I am inclined to believe that people willing to commit a crime to enter will not suddenly develop a respect for law and community. Not paying taxes is also a crime. Not a petty one either. But citation needed.

  26. Richmond. El Sob #1. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't give a fuck. Post it on liveleak later. Props. Status.

  27. Mexicans, perchance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is responsible for these crimes? Could it possibly be NON-WHITES? Why are they in WHITE countries anyway? Because the JEW knows he will eventually be expelled if white people keep their countries all white. So the JEW throws millions of non-whites at you, rather like a criminal fleeing from police in a car will throw rubbish out the back of the car to block up the road as they chase them.

  28. We Need Many Cams by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Hidden cams surely work out better than conspicuous cams. Making crime a worse and worse path for an individual is a great way to reduce crime in the long term. And we need those cams in the finest neighborhoods as well as in the ghetto areas. Those cams have two benefits. First they can lead to the arrest of the guilty . Next they can protect people from incorrect arrests. A good cam system can provide your location at a certain time and many times the accused is no where near the crime site. And then there are the lives and property saved by making crime next to impossible.

    1. Re:We Need Many Cams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citizen, congratuations on a white psycho-pass!