4 ms·
As I understand, the main limitation is the speed of human response after the fact and the limited number of officers that make false positives costly to respon
by kube-system 3y ago
As I understand, the main limitation is the speed of human response after the fact and the limited number of officers that make false positives costly to respond to. Criminals don't tend to stick around at the scene of a shooting, and you don't necessarily want to waste a bunch of officers responding to bad data.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI don't think false positives was the bottleneck as much as the fact that data on shots fired isn't especially useful of actionable.
- omginternets 3y agoIt’s useful as a signal to dispatch a unit.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoMaybe I'm cynical, but what would be the point if The criminals are long gone? I live near a lot of urban gunfire and I can't imagine what they would do unless there is a dead body.
- theultdev 3y agoWhat if the criminals aren't long gone and the gunfire persisted long enough to kill more innocent bystanders? What if the arrival of the police or the sound of sirens dispelled the gunfire early enough to save those bystanders? What if that body they find isn't quite dead, but bleeding out and they are able to save them?
- omginternets 3y agoRight? I’m at a loss as to how someone could think an unhurried response to gunfire is appropriate.
- theultdev 3y agoTopics about law enforcement get very irrational here. To the point where suggesting officers should respond incase someone is bleeding out get downvoted. I guess the compassionate thing is to wait for the body on Monday because "what's the point"
- omginternets 3y agoI can think of several things: 1. Administer first aid 2. Gather witnesses 3. Preserve evidence 4. Coordinate with other units to grid-search for suspicious persons or vehicles 5. In some cases, gather evidence/testimony that enables immediate pursuit You know… police work.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI was speaking more in a practical sense, and I think you are responding more in ideal sense. I agree some of those things would be nice. However, at some point there are too many shots to even show up for, let alone do the more involved tasks you mention, and I think this is the situations some cities using the service found themselves in. At that point, it just becomes a data collection project, with unclear goals. For what it is worth, I think we have ShotSpotter in my location, but have never seen police physically responding to shots fired. That is not to say it isn't useful in other locations
- omginternets 3y agoWhich of the listed items is not practical? This is all routine police business. Having the resources and political will to respond is a separate matter entirely, but that has virtually nothing to do with the importance of treating gunfire as an emergency.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI think 2-5 are pretty unlikely and/or impractical given the conflicting demands on officer time in the real world. For context, my city has a 20 minute average response time for priority #1 911 calls (violent crime in progress). Response time for priory #2 & #3 calls is around 6 hours ( non-violent crime in progress, in progress disputes, just completed felonies, and stolen cars). There are 10,000 ShotSpotter events a year. As much as I wish it weren't the case, I simply dont think looking for casings, getting statements, and or performing a search is likely to be the highest demand for police time.
- kube-system 3y agoYes, but the above comment is suggesting that with video, the data could be more actionable.
- red-iron-pine 3y agothe false positives were totally the bottleneck. a car backfiring or trunk being slammed down hard would set off the sensor. echoes and interference meant that it struggled figuring out where it came from. if you're using this tool to dispatch officers to investigate then it's going to lead to a lot of wasted time