4 ms·

"Someone hearing a gunshot" is not probable cause to pull someone over, just as someone calling in a gunshot to the police is not probable cause to pull someone

"Someone hearing a gunshot" is not probable cause to pull someone over, just as someone calling in a gunshot to the police is not probable cause to pull someone over.

esoterica 4y ago
Which means that Shotspotter's methodology is irrelevant since there's no probable cause in any case, so the discovery request is unjustified.
- etchalon 4y ago
  If reporting from Shotspotter is presented as evidence, the discovery request is justified.
SilasX 4y ago
The article isn't clear. The defense claims that the driver was pulled over solely from the shotspotter alert: >>Attorneys from the Cook County Public Defender Office, contending the police pulled the man over solely based on a ShotSpotter alert, subpoenaed the company as a third party to find out whether that was the case. but that seems unlikely -- it would be really expensive and low-yield to pull over everyone in the vicinity of a gunshot. It would be about the same as with regular human ears hearing a bang: go to the source, then pull over cars with evidence further differentiating them as a possible locus of crime. So probably shotspotter got the cop to that location, where he saw other, more crime-specific evidence. But without more info about this case I couldn't say for sure.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > it would be really expensive and low-yield to pull over everyone in the vicinity of a gunshot Expensive and low-yield for whom? For the officer who's been directed their by the robot, they're incentivized to do so; it makes them look like they're doing their jobs instead of doing nothing. What's built into the system to penalize them for inconveniencing / endangering a bunch of people with nothing to show for it?
  - SilasX 4y ago
    Searching a car and catching a criminal always makes them look better than just searching a car. [1]And I’m not sure how your point, if you have one beyond making yourself look smart, relates to the broader issue of whether shotspotter was the only evidence, which was the focus of that comment. And if you’re economizing on time, I can assure that a better use of it would be to answer the challenge you kept dodging (or “misinterpreting” as a opportunity to show off irrelevant knowledge): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259971 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259971 At this point I’m just going to assume you have no idea if 7% is a good threshold or not, but still see so problem with shouting it because it sounds good. [1] In case you forgot, the only reason you were outraged was because the search did catch a criminal that it shouldn’t have. So obviously someone cares about catching a criminal!
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      Sorry, I'm not sure where you're picking up "outrage" from my comment. You were asserting "It would be really expensive and low-yield to pull over everyone in the vicinity of a gunshot" and I was asking 'for whom?' I don't see how incentives are aligned for that to be expensive at all for the person doing the pulling over, and I tend to evaluate people's behavior on the assumption that, all other things being equal, they'll do what they're most incentivized to in a given situation most of the time. It's expensive for the community, to be sure, but the cop's not incentivized immediately to care about that.
      - SilasX 4y ago
        >Sorry, I'm not sure where you're picking up "outrage" from my comment. It wasn't in that comment, it was in the premise of all your previous posts that it is outrag^W^W^W^W^W suboptimal for someone to be pulled over and eventually arrested for DUI when the original instigating cause was a false positive for gunfire. IOW, the entire reason you're talking about this case, is because they did not pull over everyone in the vicinity but prioritized those that were more likely to be committing crime, based on other signals. That's how we got to this case to begin with! And yet, I'm having to remind you that you're arguing with yourself. Do you consider it too much to ask that you remember the context of what you're talking about? And for others not have to remind you? Also, thanks for the confirmation that you don't have a substantive answer to the substantive question, "what probability threshold is appropriate for police to enter in preparation for an active shooter" -- I had always assumed your comment was bad-faith to begin with. Especially when you deny that comments such as these are expressing something similar to outrage: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259925

"Someone hearing a gunshot" is not probable cause to pull someone over, just as someone calling in a gunshot to the police is not probable cause to pull someone over.

esoterica 4y ago

Which means that Shotspotter's methodology is irrelevant since there's no probable cause in any case, so the discovery request is unjustified.

etchalon 4y ago
If reporting from Shotspotter is presented as evidence, the discovery request is justified.

SilasX 4y ago

The article isn't clear. The defense claims that the driver was pulled over solely from the shotspotter alert: >>Attorneys from the Cook County Public Defender Office, contending the police pulled the man over solely based on a ShotSpotter alert, subpoenaed the company as a third party to find out whether that was the case. but that seems unlikely -- it would be really expensive and low-yield to pull over everyone in the vicinity of a gunshot. It would be about the same as with regular human ears hearing a bang: go to the source, then pull over cars with evidence further differentiating them as a possible locus of crime. So probably shotspotter got the cop to that location, where he saw other, more crime-specific evidence. But without more info about this case I couldn't say for sure.

shadowgovt 4y ago
> it would be really expensive and low-yield to pull over everyone in the vicinity of a gunshot Expensive and low-yield for whom? For the officer who's been directed their by the robot, they're incentivized to do so; it makes them look like they're doing their jobs instead of doing nothing. What's built into the system to penalize them for inconveniencing / endangering a bunch of people with nothing to show for it?
- SilasX 4y ago
  Searching a car and catching a criminal always makes them look better than just searching a car. [1]And I’m not sure how your point, if you have one beyond making yourself look smart, relates to the broader issue of whether shotspotter was the only evidence, which was the focus of that comment. And if you’re economizing on time, I can assure that a better use of it would be to answer the challenge you kept dodging (or “misinterpreting” as a opportunity to show off irrelevant knowledge): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259971 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259971 At this point I’m just going to assume you have no idea if 7% is a good threshold or not, but still see so problem with shouting it because it sounds good. [1] In case you forgot, the only reason you were outraged was because the search did catch a criminal that it shouldn’t have. So obviously someone cares about catching a criminal!
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Sorry, I'm not sure where you're picking up "outrage" from my comment. You were asserting "It would be really expensive and low-yield to pull over everyone in the vicinity of a gunshot" and I was asking 'for whom?' I don't see how incentives are aligned for that to be expensive at all for the person doing the pulling over, and I tend to evaluate people's behavior on the assumption that, all other things being equal, they'll do what they're most incentivized to in a given situation most of the time. It's expensive for the community, to be sure, but the cop's not incentivized immediately to care about that.
    - SilasX 4y ago
      >Sorry, I'm not sure where you're picking up "outrage" from my comment. It wasn't in that comment, it was in the premise of all your previous posts that it is outrag^W^W^W^W^W suboptimal for someone to be pulled over and eventually arrested for DUI when the original instigating cause was a false positive for gunfire. IOW, the entire reason you're talking about this case, is because they did not pull over everyone in the vicinity but prioritized those that were more likely to be committing crime, based on other signals. That's how we got to this case to begin with! And yet, I'm having to remind you that you're arguing with yourself. Do you consider it too much to ask that you remember the context of what you're talking about? And for others not have to remind you? Also, thanks for the confirmation that you don't have a substantive answer to the substantive question, "what probability threshold is appropriate for police to enter in preparation for an active shooter" -- I had always assumed your comment was bad-faith to begin with. Especially when you deny that comments such as these are expressing something similar to outrage: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259925