As there are no specific requirements to have cameras in a building any codes would involve wiring. I’m not sure what rating system makes a camera professional grade.
But I get your point about professional installation. The thing is, my cameras don’t require any installation and they’re low voltage. place them anywhere and plug them in an outlet.
Do you happen to know how many wifi cameras can be hooked up and running on the same router at a time? What range they have? Are there outlets in the halls and in the rooms located near where you need to install the camera?
Then you were talking about the ability to remotely open doors. Do you really trust that to wifi? Seems a great security issue for any two-bit hacker to make an iphone app that will pop open a door on command.
Bad enough that it’d be child’s play to remotely disable all your $20 cameras, but a shooter would also have free reign, being able to open any locked classroom door they want, removing the one protection that a teacher can offer to their students.
Yes, you have given a simple solution, and like most simple solutions to complex problems, it’s really not all that simple, not at all.
I would think it hard to hack something that’s not turned on.
At the risk of hijacking this thread, what wouldn’t be always turned on? Cameras are always on. The remote door-opener device would always be on (else how would you remotely open the door?)
To do this correctly, it would need to be a professional-type installation, as mentioned above. Cameras would be POE (power over ethernet), controlled by a switch connected to UPS. A large server somewhere to capture and archive the camera feed, with redundancy, of course.
And last time I looked, cameras were not bulletproof.
The point is that the story on the news media and the rumor mills is not based on reality. It starts with a false impression people have about what the police do, comes around to talking about training programs that don’t work. And the blame here should start with the incompetence at the top that works it’s way down to the bottom.
My cameras can be turned on and off as can the phone software running it. I can turn the sound on and off, color vs B&W, an alarm…
no but you can buy tiny cameras hidden in all manner of objects. Or do without.
Again, I was just spitballing.
It shows. The MAINTENANCE costs for the CCTV system in a single one of our stores is between $30k and $50k. And our stores are a lot smaller than even a small school.
The materials and installation is 8-10X that.
Do you do this remotely? If so, it’s not really off, it’s in standby, and can be messed with.
If not, then who is assigned to run around the school turning on the cameras in a shooting situation?
The same guy who’s got the master key to all the rooms.
There are no materials and installation with the cameras I use. Take it out of the box. plug it in. Sink it with the software.
We’re not talking about the bunker room in a nuclear silo. We’re talking about adding cost effective cameras for an emergency.
Clearly the system the school couldn’t afford had it’s faults and that was mainly because it didn’t exist.
Modding: I think it is time to take the camera conversation to a new thread.
It was fine as a brief departure but it is now going round and round and hijacking the thread.
This topic was automatically opened after 5 minutes.
deleted per Mod’s request regarding cameras
No, they had the shooter isolated to one room that they didn’t breach in a timely manner. They could have, but they chose not to. Because they were scared.
Can you cite this? How was the room breached?
Having gone through my own industry’s revolution in attack response tactics following 9/11 and the mind-fu** that represents as you unlearn decades of training. …
ISTM that once a single shot has been fired, the situation cannot be assumed to be a hostage situation where extended delay and negotiations are quite properly the order of the day.
Once there is even a single shot we know there’s a good chance someone is dead or gravely wounded. And the attacker(s) have crossed the mental / emotional Rubicon of firing their weapon(s). That means, ref the expert @MikeF above, a transition to “stop the shooter, now!” with any/all means at your disposal. And, admittedly, at great personal risk to the immediate responders tasked with doing that.
The good news is that since shots are loud and mostly unmistakable and definitely attention attracting, it is highly likely they’ll be reported timely to 911 and/or heard directly by any LEO on scene, whether they’re there by regular duty assignment, by coincidence, or by dispatch to a call. IOW, we don’t need to worry much about detecting the transition from developing hostage situation to active shooter situation. It will be abundantly clear to anyone in a position to do anything about it. Be they at Dispatch HQ or out at the scene.
For certain the sound of high rates of fire further ups the urgency. Even to the point that concerns for “friendly fire” start to drop away. If the police storm the room with flash-bangs & covering
(read “unaimed indiscriminate”) rifle fire and hit one kid, but prevent the subsequent slaughter of 15 more once they’re in the room and nail the perp, a good thing will have happened. Fearing to actively hurt the one and thereby passively permitting the slaughter of many is an error. A perhaps understandable error in our second-guess-prone world, but not one that should be permitted to carry the day.
Overall I can understand the idea to proceed on a hostage basis. Until the first shot was fired. Then it’s time for combat with all the fury and violence and damage that represents.
Or so it seems to this old guy. Whose last charge under full auto with outbound fire coming back the other way was 40 years ago. Sometimes “now” is about 5 minutes late. Don’t dawdle; just do it.
I agree with everything LSL said… I’m to establish when they were able to enter the room on a timeline of shots fired.
Actually, it was two adjoining rooms.
I believe I read that there was a shared bathroom between the two rooms, but I cannot find that cite.
But the fact that there are two rooms leads me to believe that were two hallway doors. I cannot verify this, however.
I agree with everything you’ve said…
…and here it sounds like what happened is that they may have started out with the correct intent to engage quickly. Then when they encountered the locked door, and did not have the means to open it or easily breach it, perhaps a kind of rationalization process took place. They didn’t know how to deal with this under the active shooter engage-as-quickly-as-possible protocol, but they knew how to deal with it under the barricaded hostage taker protocol. So they rationalized that the latter was the correct protocol, even though it clearly was not. They worked backwards from what they could easily do to rationalize that this was what they should do.