6 ms·

Not sure what country you are in, but that's called civic duty, and helps society work.

• stephens_chris 7y ago
  In some societies, you are rewarded, or at least supported, in doing your civic duty. That's often not the case in other places. There can be a high cost.
• loteck 7y ago
  Why can't society compensate this person fairly for his help?
  • garmaine 7y ago
    It can. He should be able to invoice the DA for his time. The taxpayers (society) foots the bill.
    • threwawasy1228 7y ago
      As someone who just served Jury Duty in the USA. I can tell you the 'bill' for my services was barely minimum wage.
      • ghaff 7y ago
        Last time I got called for jury duty (but didn't get chosen), I forget what the per diem rate was but basically it wouldn't have covered parking (or at least not by much).
      • authoritarian 7y ago
        Fortunately it's incredibly easy to get eliminated during the selection process if you know how to answer the questions
        • garmaine 7y ago
          And without lying / perjuring yourself either. Telling the selective truth is enough :)
        • palisade 7y ago
          I'd be a great juror. I can spot a criminal just by looking at them!
        • xeromal 7y ago
          Then we end up with a jury that has only people that have nothing better to do
        • threwawasy1228 7y ago
          I purposefully decided not to attempt to use a bunch of excuses to get out of it actually, because I was interested in the experience.
      • garmaine 7y ago
        Jury Duty is not the same as being served a subpoena for the prosecution.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  • notJim 7y ago
    As others say, society does to some degree, but isn't the real compensation for such things living in a society where people help each other in these circumstances? Not everything has to be a financial transaction.
• Faaak 7y ago
  How is them going to court a civic duty ? You could testify once that this is your camera and here are the mp4 files (and their sha sum). And that would be it. Equally, technically they didn't see anything as the video caught by the camera could actually be made up.
  • throwaway_law 7y ago
    >How is them going to court a civic duty ? Imagine if it was you or a loved one that was murdered and a neighbor's camera caught the suspect breaking into the house. >You could testify once that this is your camera and here are the mp4 files (and their sha sum). And that would be it. This is just how the rules of evidence work (also equal protection and due process), you can't just submit video, there needs to be testimony to introduce the video into evidence. Further, the defendant has a constitutional right to cross examine the person who introduces the video into evidence. >Equally, technically they didn't see anything as the video caught by the camera could actually be made up. Yes, and the Defense will hammer this point home. You didn't see the murder right? If the video actually shows what it alleges to show, the defendant breaking into the home, you have no evidence the defendant actually killed the homeowner right? You have no evidence the defendant even confronted the deceased correct? Of course there are other questions about handling the video and chain of custody, but the obvious being was the video edited (by you or the police after turning it over to them)? Do you have a copy of the original video you turned over to police (is there a difference between the copies, etc...). As another commented said there is no difference between the video and if you eye-witnessed the suspect entering the home, you would still testify one way or the other (including acknowledging you didn't see the suspect commit the murder and have no knowledge if the suspect committed the murder, its possible someone else could have broke in when you weren't watching, or around back, etc...)
    • LorenPechtel 7y ago
      The idea of cross-examining the person who introduces security camera video doesn't really make much sense. If the camera actually witnessed the crime what could the installation possibly have to do with it? The only time it could be relevant is if the camera simply showed when/where the suspect was. I would like to see the system modified somewhat--in criminal trials everyone has to disclose what they are going to present anyway. The other side should be required to indicate if and in what way they are going to challenge the evidence. If there's no dispute about where the camera is then nobody need be available to testify to where it is. (As it's cloud there's no issue of when.)
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• chrisdhoover 7y ago
  Except the civic institutions are corrupt and therefore the duty is voided.