The technology alerts law enforcement officials to the location of gunfire within seconds with pinpoint accuracy, helping to reduce gun violence.How? The shots have already happened. By going back in time?
We've talked about this before.
Let's do an experiment.
BANG BANG BANG
Now imagine how far away you could be in the two minutes "average time" Newark says it takes them to respond. And why on earth would we not believe a Newark police official?
"Currently ShotSpotter is deployed in more than 29 major U.S. cities," we are told.
Anyone got numbers to demonstrate a reduction in "gun violence" attributable to the system?
The word "fraud" comes to mind. But I guess when you're part of the problem, there's nothing to do but keep the con game going as long as you can find suckers to fall for it.
11 comments:
Perfect Timing. One of Birmingham's local news stations ran a story yesterday about how well the system is working in Birmingham.
And of course, since Birmingham's smaller, the response time is quoted *20 seconds* to 1 minute.
I called to report shots fired in phoenix once. No one ever showed up. I get the feeling that something like this will just turn into that.
2000 detections, 1000 dispatches, and one arrest? Seriously? I bet the rate of arrests in response to phoned in shots fired calls is about the same.
Also, they claim that the number of shots fired has declined, but since it is only over a three month period, it impossible to actually make such a claim.
The money quote has got to be:
“I just think it's great that they finally can pinpoint where they're coming from, that way everybody can feel safe; especially people with small children,” Gamble concluded.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I suppose that if you shot out one of their precious Big Ears, they would know exactly where the shooting occurred.
"They" are trying to bring that crap to Jackson, MS. Of course, it's only a feel good measure that they are "doing something." What a waste of money.
Now imagine how far away you could be in the two minutes "average time" Newark says it takes them to respond.
I know I use this as an example a lot but, living in Blacksburg, it's personal to me.
About 7:15 a.m. Cho shoots Hilscher in her room(4040) at WAJ. He also shoots Ryan Christopher Clark, an RA. Clark, it is thought, most likely came to investigate noises in Hilscher’s room, which is next door to his. Both of the victims’ wounds prove to be fatal.
7:17 a.m. Cho’s access card is swiped at
Harper Hall (his residence hall). He goes to his room to change out of his bloody clothes.
Two minutes. The killer was safely away and in his room.
What's the distance this thing can pick up a firing. I can imagine one on the outskirts of the city picking up legal shooting on private property getting them all worked up
Riposte3--thank you, great...uhh...riposte. I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to use this in the future.
I would be very surprised if ShotSpotter is fake. I know I heard reference to this in the Minibike/police/teen shooting last year in DC, but even without reference to that incident consider your own ears:
You can listen, and tell what direction sounds are coming from. You can identify sounds. Based on this you can take action.
I doubt it'd be particularly difficult to design a device with a microphone or two that can tell the phase/time difference of arrival of a signal. The sound of a firearm being discharged in fairly distinct, so no real propblem identifying when a shot has been fired. Also, given modern communication it isn't difficult to display information nearly instantly.
I'll buy that this 1.2 million dollar system can tell the police when a firearm has been discharged, and approximately where.
Knowing information isn't the same as acting on it, of course.
What'd be really interesting to know, though, is what constitutes "private donations raised
by the Community Foundation of New Jersey that approved and secured $1.2 million for the system." I'm betting this didn't come from car washes down on Main St.
ShotSpotter is definitely real. I've seen the equivalent military system. However, the article shows that it surely doesn't seem to be useful. Also, from the wikipedia page:
'Acoustic systems can generally be defeated by "silencers," more technically known as suppressors.'
So that can be easily worked around (of course, using any other weapon or moving out of the area after shooting would also be a work around). I'm guessing subsonic ammunition would also not be properly detected.
I'm not against police departments using new things. I think the only way it could be useful is if an officer could respond in seconds, ie, if the sensors are on patrol cars instead of fixed.
I'd like an "enforcer detector" that warns of the location of every cop.
I'm sure the natural progression is to eventually start putting video cameras in the same areas that are covered by the microphones. It will be just like in English cities, so many cops sitting in front of monitors, instead of out on patrol. They originally sold the English on the video to look for terrorists. Never found any, even with facial recognition software, or stopped any crimes in progress, AFAIK. But they now have many millions of them. Can you say "1984"?
Post a Comment