Colonel Taylor wrote:
Stop by and ask the Smoke House on 64 in Hendersonville? They had an attempted abduction there a year or so ago and it was later found out the camera's don't work.
Would a camera have stopped the attempted abduction?
If there was a sign announcing the presence of cameras, the alleged abductor must not have cared.
O Really's link mentions ATM cameras. OK- the message is not Hey, k9. We've got you covered. You don't need to be aware of your surroundings; we're handling that for you.
The message is to remind the crooks that their crime will be caught on camera.
Colonel Taylor wrote:
k9nanny wrote:
You still haven't answered my question. If I get mugged in the Walmart parking lot, is Walmart liable because I know they have cameras, so I don't have to take any responsibility for my safety?
How would I know I'm not an Attorney. But there as to be a pretty good reason why these stores aren't getting them repaired or replaced.
So you made up that whole thing about liability? You seemed to know earlier in the thread.
No the letter I saw if I remember correctly said they, the store would be liable because the customer has the expectation of safety while in there lot. They just last week had a vehicle go thru the front of the building and the women swore that someone cut her off and she had no choice. When the law asked for the video they got an oh well. Will there be a law suit who knows. Some sue for any reason now a days.
It's pretty obvious many other businesses for some reason are following suit since there are two right her in this county. When the cars were getting broken into in the Sonic Parking lot if the Cameras had worked would they have been liable, who knows but it's only a matter of time before there is a law suit.
It seems to be an unsettled question. I still say having cameras is no guarantee of safety, and anyone who thinks so is pretty naive.
