4 ms·

> Soon after another vehicle pulled up alongside, and someone in a passenger seat took out a gun and shot Herring in the head, Williams told police. I dont und

by bryan0 5y ago

> Soon after another vehicle pulled up alongside, and someone in a passenger seat took out a gun and shot Herring in the head, Williams told police. I dont understand what Shotspotter has to do with this case at all. The question the case seems to hinge on is “who fired the gun”, not “was a gun fired at this location”. What am I missing?

dylan604 5y ago
>What am I missing? The fact that some of the evidence the police used to say who did what where was manufactured by the company.
- bryan0 5y ago
  The headline is: > A man spent a year in jail on a murder charge that hinged on disputed AI evidence. But after the reading the article, the evidence seemed irrelevant? Maybe the headline should have been: > AI evidence was manually reclassified after human review in murder case
  - DubiousPusher 5y ago
    Incorrect > Prosecutors said ShotSpotter picked up a gunshot sound where Williams was seen on surveillance camera footage in his car, putting it all forward as proof that Williams shot Herring right there and then. The police used the altered location of the shot to imply that the defendant's story about what happened wasn't true. Which was that another person in another var at a different location did the shooting. They used the altered location data alongside video evidence to imply the defendant and the victim were alone at the shot location and therefore the defendant was the only possible suspect.
    - bryan0 5y ago
      > The police used the altered location of the shot to imply that the defendant's story about what happened wasn't true. Which was that another person in another var at a different location did the shooting. Ok that would make more sense, but I definitely did not take that away from the article. I’m sure there are better sources on this case though.
      - dylan604 5y ago
        >I’m sure there are better sources on this case though. Yet another example of why you cannot get your information from one source. Even if they are not trying to mislead, the one author might not have all of the information to provide in thier writings.

by bryan0 5y ago

dylan604 5y ago

>What am I missing? The fact that some of the evidence the police used to say who did what where was manufactured by the company.

bryan0 5y ago
The headline is: > A man spent a year in jail on a murder charge that hinged on disputed AI evidence. But after the reading the article, the evidence seemed irrelevant? Maybe the headline should have been: > AI evidence was manually reclassified after human review in murder case
- DubiousPusher 5y ago
  Incorrect > Prosecutors said ShotSpotter picked up a gunshot sound where Williams was seen on surveillance camera footage in his car, putting it all forward as proof that Williams shot Herring right there and then. The police used the altered location of the shot to imply that the defendant's story about what happened wasn't true. Which was that another person in another var at a different location did the shooting. They used the altered location data alongside video evidence to imply the defendant and the victim were alone at the shot location and therefore the defendant was the only possible suspect.
  - bryan0 5y ago
    > The police used the altered location of the shot to imply that the defendant's story about what happened wasn't true. Which was that another person in another var at a different location did the shooting. Ok that would make more sense, but I definitely did not take that away from the article. I’m sure there are better sources on this case though.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      >I’m sure there are better sources on this case though. Yet another example of why you cannot get your information from one source. Even if they are not trying to mislead, the one author might not have all of the information to provide in thier writings.