Live near Chicago, just want to point out they recently discovered a murdered person quickly near where the report was. I don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t want the police to have another tool to reduce shootings on the southside. Reducing the number of shootings anywhere in the city is not a racist policy contrary to the articles assertion.
I believe part of the argument is that it can lead to over policing. I’m in Cleveland where it’s been controversial because most of the devices have been deployed to predominantly black neighborhoods. So they get the most detections because that’s where the most sensors are because they were guided by police data on where the most gun violence historically has been located. Which leads to more police presence, more shakedowns, harassment of people in those neighborhoods. It can lead to a bad reinforcement loop.
Devices are installed where shootings are frequently reported by civilians.
The shootings are usually gang related, not at the police, so I don't see how your theory of heightened policing causes a loop.
The best way to protect the innocent civilians in the area is to increase surveillance and police presence.
Removing police presence is a disservice to the people who are victims of the gang violence in the area. Those people are the ones who call the police and want them there.
Only if you remove the police in areas do you get a feedback loop (no protection, so you join a gang for protection, which leads to more gang violence)
Gun violence! Apologize for the typo, I spotted it after edit window ended.
I am not proposing to do anything. I just described a possible mechanism for how additional policing can lead to additional incarceration, aside from homicide and attempted murders.
Only if you fall into the trap of thinking that disparate impact = discrimination. It's easier to blame selective enforcement than accept that there's a problem there.
That being said, there has been abuse with them. Police pushing to classify ambiguous sounds as shots to justify their actions.
I guess that argument might make some sense with “victimless crimes” like drugs where it’s possible that people in other neighborhoods are doing drugs and the amount and level of police makes it appear certain people are commiting more crimes.
However, I’m not convinced that things like shootings and murder is something that’s being enforced less in other areas of the city as you are probably going to end up in a hospital or discovered either way. You might think it would be more likely to be reported in other areas where the community generally supports the police or has more access to healthcare. So I think it’s totally logical and reasonable to install these tools where the most murders and shootings occur and to have a higher police presence there to try and reduce them.
It feels like you're pointing to your proximity to those affected as the source of your authority here? I live on the south side and more or less always have so hopefully my view is taken at least as seriously on that principle.
The police don't use this tool to reduce shootings on the south side. It's debatable whether this tool is even capable of that, but regardless that is certainly not what the police have done or intend to do with it.
Chicago police are a menace to my community and any power or tool they have been given they use primarily to harm and intimidate. Regardless of what the tool could do, or is intended to do, the history of CPD here is very clear.
I live in Chicago. My neighbor (a police officer) was finally able to kill her rapist boyfriend (another police officer) after years being subjected of abuse. He might be in hell but the people he affected, family, neighbors, still live through it. The Chicago Police Department is an institution that lacks oversight and smart staffing. Even the most well intentioned graft startup like ShotSpotter won’t improve their ability.
Live near Boston, just want to point out they recently discovered a pedophile priest was communicating with his victims using strongly encrypted messaging platforms. I don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t want the police to have another tool to reduce child sexual abuse. etc.
My neighbor just had a police officer move into his spare bedroom full time. I don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t want the police to have another tool to reduce shootings, which this clearly does. It's not like the cop has a personality, with biases and subjective opinions which form his or her worldview and consequent behavior.
These devices are typically installed in "high crime" areas. They then detect more crime (Or just loud noises). This calls police to respond to the area, and increased interaction with police commonly leads to increased confrontation with police leading to arrests. Thus re-enforcing the "high crime" reputation of the area.
Scary that activists rather go after that company than the issue of police being incapable of responding without without shooting people. The company is crummy, but its not even close to being the actual problem. Guess its a low hanging fruit, compared to the police culture.
I'm not sure why going after "low hanging fruit" should be considered a bad strategy? If you can't build the resolve that leads to removing low hanging fruit in pursuit of the actual problem, how likely is it that your advocacy will ever fix the actual problem?
In any case, I believe the anti-ShotSpotter advocates not only assert that SS is cost-ineffective, but that its alerts lead to increased escalation:
> There was another study that found that the police, in areas where they know ShotSpotter alerts happen, tend to arrive more amped up and ready to jump out and engage. And in Chicago, this has had repercussions. Most recently, there was a case where a ShotSpotter alert went off, and it was unclear whether it was a gunshot or a firework. But the police arrived. They saw a man in his front yard, and they opened fire on him immediately. Fortunately, they didn’t hit him. And it turned out that it was just a firework. It was not a gunshot. The man did not have a gun.
Because the actual problem is so much larger than shotspotter. The cops are gonna keep killing people and companies are gonna keep finding a way of facilitating this while making money.
I don't think its wrong to combat the shotspotter, but looking from the outside in it's just such a bizarre situation that US cops will kill people no matter what. Its very much like trying to do things against swatting, except doing how its handled in the rest of the world by not killing random civilians just because a crime was phoned in.
So many formerly thriving American cities suffer because of insane murder rates and neverending gang violence. Journalists who study Shotspotter and other methods of stopping gang violence will almost never approach the problem with the intent of mitigating what amounts to a major public health emergency (if you can even call it that). Instead, they work to frustrate underfunded police departments and encourage police budget cuts as warfare rages on.
Chicago PD's budget is ~$2 billion officially, closer to $3 billion when considering accounting trickery. If they want more money, perhaps they should stop illegally brutalizing people?
> The city paid out $639 million in police-related judgments and settlements between 2012 and the end of 2021, but only budgeted for $329 million in that span
That's hardly the problem. There are millions of people who legally carry concealed firearms in the USA without an issue daily. The "gun" violence is not committed by those people; in fact they are something like 10x more likely to use their gun defensively than to intentionally commit crimes.
Yup. CCW permit holders are considerably less likely to be convicted of felonies than the average person--and a good portion of the crimes they "commit" are improper carry. Either letting it show or carrying where they weren't supposed to (which isn't always obvious. Some states you can't carry in any business that sells alcohol--but when alcohol is a small part of their product line you might not know.)
Fundamentally, if you made it to 21 without messing up badly enough to be denied CCW you're probably not going to be a bad guy later.
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is the canonical form of this argument. And it’s utterly irrelevant.
Sure, most people with a gun don’t kill anyone. But the fact is, some people will. Prohibiting access is by far the best means of preventing those tragedies before they happen. High price to pay? Sure. But saving lives is worth it.
Guns do save lives when carried by responsible, law-abiding individuals (and almost all are). Lawfully owned and carried firearms are used defensively something like 10x more than in the commission of crimes.
From the CDC: "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."
> Prohibiting access is by far the best means of preventing those tragedies before they happen.
Sure, just like providing food to starving people is the best way of helping them. Unfortunately, things are rarely so simple and black-and-white, right?
> Lawfully owned and carried firearms are used defensively something like 10x more than in the commission of crimes.
That's citing the maximum of the CDC estimate; the low end of that same estimate paints a more sobering picture.
If you take the lower end of the estimate, another way of saying it would be "nearly 40% of the interactions involving this product are used illegally." We strongly regulate things that have a much smaller chance of causing harm than firearms.
> Sure, just like providing food to starving people is the best way of helping them. Unfortunately, things are rarely so simple and black-and-white, right?
Your argument here is, what - it's not "so simple and black-and-white" to provide food to the hungry? I happen to think it is that simple, and black-and-white: there is no good reason that anyone on this planet goes hungry. We have more than enough resources to go around. I find any suggestion to the contrary to be deeply morally abhorrent.
> If you take the lower end of the estimate, another way of saying it would be "nearly 40% of the interactions involving this product are used illegally." We strongly regulate things that have a much smaller chance of causing harm than firearms.
I wouldn't take the lower end of the estimate, because most defensive firearms uses are not reported. Firearms are also already highly regulated, yet a number of illicit use still occurs. By your logic, we need fewer firearms regulations to tip the balance.
I don't understand what you are proposing that hasn't already been tried, done, or is completely impractical. Banning things, especially an empowering technology, has never worked. It is better to decentralize and distribute that power - in this case, it is a political power - fairly and equally among all people.
I can think of at least one high-profile counter-example to this, specifically with guns, within living memory.
I’m done arguing with you; there’s no sense arguing with people who think that gun violence is just a political football. I pray you are never the victim of your preferred policies.
The "different dimension" is the mentality and unaccountability of the police themselves, not that the average citizen is able to carry a gun. ShotSpotter is like crack to police, as it gives them an escalation pretext of "shots fired" before they even show up to a scene.
