4 ms·

The reality is in those areas cops are always armed and expecting active shooters. Look up the gunplay stats for places like Back of The Yards in Chicago.

by pxmpxm 4y ago

shadowgovt 4y ago
In that case, a technology encouraging them to go out expecting armed resistance when no crime has been committed is an obvious danger for the community.
- pxmpxm 4y ago
  If you think armed cops are the obvious danger in shotspotter neighborhoods, you've departed objective reality. Eg https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022/7/27/23280415/chicago-shootings-gun-violence https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022/7/27/23280415/chicag...
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > If you think armed cops are the obvious danger Yes, I do think that. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/1101496374/chicago-police-13-year-old-shot-lawsuit https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/1101496374/chicago-police-13-... It seems to me that to think otherwise is a "the omelet requires breaking eggs" argument.
solardev 4y ago
Lived in Chicago (but not the south side) and can agree that the gun violence there is extreme. It's an war zone every day, with thousands of shootings a year and hundreds of homicides. That said, I don't think anyone is opposed to technology that can locate gunshots and deliver law enforcement to the right places. The gripe is that this company in particular has a history of being opaque and trying to cover up their failings, leading to questions about the effectiveness of their underlying technology and data integrity. The public can't tell whether this is a legitimate social good based on an effective tool or if the company is just ripping off tax payers and sometimes outright working with crooked cops to fabricate probable cause. Not every cop is crooked, and not every acoustic triangulation technology is fake. But this company isn't being transparent or well intentioned enough for the public, or even a limited group of outside experts, to make that determination. And they have a history of being willing to corrupt their data, altering evidence to facilitate false records from crooked cops. The right tools in the wrong hands can still be a problem. We don't know if this is the right tool, but the company has shown itself to be the wrong hands.

The reality is in those areas cops are always armed and expecting active shooters. Look up the gunplay stats for places like Back of The Yards in Chicago.

by pxmpxm 4y ago

The reality is in those areas cops are always armed and expecting active shooters. Look up the gunplay stats for places like Back of The Yards in Chicago.

shadowgovt 4y ago

In that case, a technology encouraging them to go out expecting armed resistance when no crime has been committed is an obvious danger for the community.

pxmpxm 4y ago
If you think armed cops are the obvious danger in shotspotter neighborhoods, you've departed objective reality. Eg https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022/7/27/23280415/chicago-shootings-gun-violence https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022/7/27/23280415/chicag...
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > If you think armed cops are the obvious danger Yes, I do think that. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/1101496374/chicago-police-13-year-old-shot-lawsuit https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/1101496374/chicago-police-13-... It seems to me that to think otherwise is a "the omelet requires breaking eggs" argument.

solardev 4y ago

Lived in Chicago (but not the south side) and can agree that the gun violence there is extreme. It's an war zone every day, with thousands of shootings a year and hundreds of homicides. That said, I don't think anyone is opposed to technology that can locate gunshots and deliver law enforcement to the right places. The gripe is that this company in particular has a history of being opaque and trying to cover up their failings, leading to questions about the effectiveness of their underlying technology and data integrity. The public can't tell whether this is a legitimate social good based on an effective tool or if the company is just ripping off tax payers and sometimes outright working with crooked cops to fabricate probable cause. Not every cop is crooked, and not every acoustic triangulation technology is fake. But this company isn't being transparent or well intentioned enough for the public, or even a limited group of outside experts, to make that determination. And they have a history of being willing to corrupt their data, altering evidence to facilitate false records from crooked cops. The right tools in the wrong hands can still be a problem. We don't know if this is the right tool, but the company has shown itself to be the wrong hands.