Video Doorbell Nightmare Pt 2

Video Doorbell Nightmare Pt 2

 

It was on a Thursday evening, in August, when Angela Chambers, returning home from work, discovered debris scattered in front of the door of her apartment. The debris came from both her video doorbell camera and the anti-theft bracket, where the doorbell was kept sealed within. 

Shocked by this incident, Chambers wanted to know as to who would do this sort of thing and why, for this act was incorrigible.  Her apartment was located on the left end of the floor; her Ring wireless doorbell camera, she had installed and encased in an anti-theft bracket, captured the entire floor including the stairways.  According to her settings of the doorbell camera, the ring and motion alerts were often turn on, in addition to the motion detection, live view and motion warning settings that were enabled.

Whenever a neighbor who lives next door must walk past her door, it triggers a motion alert; or if a neighbor who lives upstairs and needs to walk downstairs because the elevator is not in service; thus, must walk past her door, the same thing happens. They can hear the alerts, each time they walk past her door based on how she has the volume set.  The motion alerts when triggered, automatically captures images and video footage of the subject.  Chambers took it upon herself to file a police report about the incident, after viewing the footage on her Ring app, to see who was at her door while she was away at work.

POLICE INVESTIGATION

She took photos of the scattered debris for documentation and saved the video footage to show the police once they arrived. Within 10 minutes, the police arrived at her door, and she let them into her apartment; as one officer, Daniel Jenison, was speaking with her, another officer, Julian Henson was in front of her door surveying the lurid scene that occurred a few hours ago.   

Officer Jenison asked if she had a Ring app that could show who was at her door, Chambers immediately responded by handing him her phone with the Ring app opened; upon viewing the app, it shows of an unidentified male approaching her door.

The full video footage is that of a male suspect emerging up the stairs, and heading towards her door armed with a hammer. Then is seen striking the anti-theft bracket; thus, causing it to shatter; resulting in the doorbell camera falling to the floor.  The suspect likely took the doorbell camera and smashed it onto the floor, rendering it to pieces.

Based on the video footage the two police officers, were not able to determine the identity of the suspect. Despite this setback, Daniel Jenison and fellow officer, Julian Henson, continued with the investigation by interviewing neighbors throughout the building to see what they knew.

The officers began making the rounds by knocking on doors, of neighbors, to ask questions to see if they had any knowledge about the vandalism that occurred.  One neighbor provided information that would give the officers clues as to why someone would vandalize her property.

A neighbor by the name of Hilda Sinclair stated during the interview how other neighbors who had to walk past her door, would hear a ringing sound coming from her apartment.  One neighbor who had to use the stairs because the elevator was out of service, had to walk past her door, when the alert was triggered.  Another neighbor who lives next door to her, explained how each time he would enter and leave his apartment, he would hear that ringing noise coming from her apartment.  From these interviews, the police were able to conjecture as to why a suspect would destroy her doorbell camera.

Police suspected whoever destroyed Chambers doorbell camera, was irritated about being photographed and captured on video, every time the alert triggered.  For it is theorized that the suspect may know about video doorbell cameras and how they work. It is suspected that the perpetrator may know the victim and perhaps, is a resident of the building.  Following some revelations, the police decided to contact Chambers again to answer more questions.

Chambers, this time was brought to the police station for further questioning; first she was asked if she had been a victim of package theft in the past, had someone tried to break into her apartment previously.  Her response to both questions were no; if that was the case, then why would she have her Ring settings set that caused unnecessary alert triggers? Her explanation is that she did this as a preventive measure, to help keep her safe; although her reasons appeared valid, it was untenable.

Police explained to Chambers, that she could’ve unwittingly committed invasion of privacy of her neighbors, based on her Ring settings.  They further explain to her that she needs to be mindful of her neighbors’ privacy; for one of them could be hiding from a dangerous person or one could be under a witness protection program, just to name a few.  Since their images are captured on camera and video, she could unknowingly be putting their safety at risk; no one needs to be on camera; unless the individual has a criminal background and has a warrant for his arrest.

With all that said, did that give the suspect the right to destroy her doorbell camera?  No, it didn’t give him the right to do so, and what the suspect did was criminal; the reason is that whoever was responsible should have reported the issue to the property manager instead of taking matters into his hands. 

In the aftermath of the police investigation, Chambers decides that it was best to not order a replacement for her doorbell camera; citing that it was not worth the trouble that came with it.  Having a video doorbell camera, while living in an apartment building or apartment complex comes with complications involving privacy issues. 

When you live on the floor with other tenants, anyone can claim invasion of privacy, if your doorbell is pointing at their door, or the motion alerts trigger every time they walk past your door.  “Why get another doorbell camera, if it is going to create problems like this?” Chambers pondered.  Acting on her best judgement, she decided to not get a new one after all, and on top of that,  she had canceled her Ring subscription.  Had she been a homeowner, and had a video doorbell camera, the outcome would’ve been different.

As a homeowner, having a video doorbell camera can come with less issues and/or less complications; unlike someone living in an apartment building.  When living in a house, the doorbell is not pointing at anyone’s door, and only triggers motion alerts when someone is at your door or on your property.  From Chambers standpoint, following her ordeal, is when you live in an apartment building, you cannot put your interest over one’s privacy.  You cannot have a video doorbell camera, when there may be someone whose privacy may be at risk once they are captured on camera.

Due to her empathetic nature, Chambers had learned, “You never know whose safety you are jeopardizing when they are being captured on camera or video; whenever one walks past your door.”  Because she was new to having a video doorbell camera, she didn’t understand the complications and problems that came along with it.  Less than a week after the incident took place, a possible suspect was later apprehended and taken to the police station for questioning.

SUSPECT CAPTURED

 

Jerome Sanderson, brought to police station to be questioned about a vandalism that took place at an apartment building located on the 4^th floor.  The reason he was a possible suspect, it was revealed that he lived on the 6^th floor of the building and was wearing the same color outfit; that was shown on the video footage.  Although his face was covered up with the video footage, Sanderson appeared to be of the same build as that of the suspect in the video.

At first Sanderson denied being the person who committed the crime of vandalism, but when an officer interviewing him, pointed out to him that the suspect in the video wore the same color and design outfit that he currently has on. Let’s not forget the fact that the suspect also matched his physical appearance such as size and build; it was when Sanderson began to become agitated. 

It was learned that a neighbor who was interviewed by police, lived on the same floor, saw Sanderson walking upstairs to his apartment with a hammer in his hand; after hearing a shattering noise coming from the lower floor.  It was when the elevator was not working that he had to use the staircase to get where he was going.  Because he had to use the stairs, he had to walk past her door when it triggered the motion alert. Police decided to run a full background check on Sanderson and came across some findings.

Back on January 15, 1986, Sanderson served six years in prison for armed-robbery and assault related to the crime.  On June 8^, 1995, Sanderson was arrested and convicted for grand larceny; April 10, 2001, he assaulted a neighbor (from previous address), and vandalized his property.  Finally, they found that he has a warrant for his arrest for felony assault and homicide.  With this, the police decided to detain him without bail, until the trial ended, but Sanderson would never get to see a trial.

On August 28, 2022, Sanderson was discovered unresponsive in a holding cell by one of the guards.  The guard opened the door and went inside to check on him and found a sheet tied to his neck. The guard then began to summon the medical technicians to tend to Sanderson; after making unsuccessful attempts by CPR to revive him, he was pronounced deceased. 

The cause of death was due to strangulation that consists with the sheet that was found tied tightly around his neck.  Why did he kill himself? Perhaps to avoid prison due to the outstanding warrant he had for his arrest.  This could explain why he destroyed Angela Chambers’ doorbell camera, because the camera was capturing his every move. The saying goes, those who complain and react, are the ones who are hiding something, and this was a good example of the Jerome Sanderson case.

CONCLUSION

Angela Chambers, returning home from work to find her video doorbell camera destroyed by a wanted felon; left her traumatized. She purchased the doorbell camera for the sole purpose of keeping her safe and providing her peace of mind. But didn’t realize or perhaps understand that because she lived in an apartment building, it came with a lot of issues and controversy involving privacy. Acting on her best judgement, Chambers decided best to not purchase another video doorbell camera as for now.   

 

THE END

 

 

 

 

1 short story fiction the video doorbell nightmare