Former BPD Lt calls Gunshot detection system "A joke"

Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
4,728
Likes
348
Location
In the Great Smoky Mountains
Feedback: 31 / 0 / 0
Mar 21, 7:59 PM EDT

More US police using gunfire detection system

By TERRY COLLINS


EAST PALO ALTO, Calif. (AP) -- It happened moments after a police sergeant blasted a shot into a sand-filled barrel to test this city's expanded gunfire tracking system.

Witnesses suddenly heard "Pop-pop-pop-pop-pop!"

Those gunshots were real. A flashing red "multiple shots" banner and an address appeared on a nearby laptop, and officers quickly located a 28-year-old man who had been shot by a masked man.

He survived. "He's lucky," Capt. Carl Estelle said.

East Palo Alto is the first U.S. city completely wired with ShotSpotter, a system of strategically placed acoustic sensors linked to a computer designed to help police locate gunfire in high-crime areas, but the technology is spreading. Thirty-six cities across America are currently using ShotSpotter - triple the number two years ago.

Cash-strapped police departments are receiving millions in federal funds to buy the system, despite debate over whether it effectively fights crime. And now cities such as Indianapolis and Trenton, N.J., hope to use federal stimulus money to pay for ShotSpotter.

Officials from the Mountain View, Calif.-based company say the technology has helped cities reduce gunfire rates by 60 to 80 percent and violent crime by 40 percent. They say the system detects dozens of gunfire incidents daily in 114 square miles inhabited by more than 774,000 people in cities such as Boston, Chicago and New Orleans.

"Every city that has it tells me when they go to where the dot is, they find evidence," said Gregg Rowland, ShotSpotter's senior vice president.

But former Boston police lieutenant Thomas Nolan questions whether the money spent on the technology could better be used to hire more police.

"The cops I talk to on the street think ShotSpotter is a joke," said Nolan, associate criminal justice professor at Boston University.

A square-mile of ShotSpotter coverage costs $200,000 to $250,000 the company said.

Supporters say the system can help police respond rapidly to violent incidents.

"If someone is severely shot, those critical seconds or minutes could be the difference between life and death," said Rochester, N.Y., Mayor Robert Duffy, a former police chief and chair of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Criminal and Social Justice Committee.

The largest ShotSpotter installation is in Washington, where it covers 16 square miles. Besides locating gunshots, the system also proved two off-duty D.C. officers did not fire first when they killed a 14-year-old boy in 2007.

In Minneapolis, the technology helped officers find this year's first homicide victim in subzero temperatures.

Gang-infested East Palo Alto, where nine people were wounded in five shootings in recent months, is now a testing ground for Shotspotter, thanks to a $200,000 federal grant and a deep discount. This working class community of 2.6 square miles and about 30,000 residents sits next to tony Palo Alto.

Some officials at the U.S. Department of Justice, which has awarded millions of dollars in similar grants around the country, cautioned that ShotSpotter's affect on crime has not been adequately evaluated.

The technology only works when combined with other law enforcement practices, said John Morgan, deputy director for science and technology at the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in Washington.

"You hear a gunshot, and naively you think it helps the cops," Morgan said. "You're sending a lot of cops on chases, but not necessarily catching a lot of people committing crimes."

ShotSpotter needs the sort of independent scientific scrutiny that a smaller competitor, SECURES, has undergone, said Peter Scharf, a public health professor at Tulane University in New Orleans.

Last year, Scharf co-authored a report to the NIJ that concluded that while officers thought SECURES was useful, there were high rates of false calls. The report also questioned whether money spent on gunshot detection technology could be better used for more policing. "You have to be skeptical with any technology of this type," Scharf said. "It's hard to prove its effectiveness."

The maker of SECURES- used in East Orange, N.J., Harrisburg, Pa., Prince Georges, Md. and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore- dispute the report's findings. Virginia-based Planning Systems Inc. says its product is most effective paired with technology such as surveillance cameras.

"It becomes an alert mechanism for a video system that normally would not be able to react to such events," said George Orrison, Planning Systems, Inc.'s marketing securities technologies director. "It provides for more 'ears and eyes' on the street."

ShotSpotter was founded in 1996 by San Francisco Bay Area engineer Robert Showen, who was trying to develop a sensor system to detect earthquakes.

Coffee-can sized sensors are usually placed on telephone poles and roofs, and are linked to a central computer. The system can pinpoint shots with the help of Global Positioning System navigation, alerting dispatchers or police officers within seconds.

Ed Hoskins, a project manager at the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center in Charleston, S.C., said he believes ShotSpotter is a good investigative tool. "If it helps catch criminals in the act, then that's a bonus," he said.

San Francisco, which had 99 homicides last year, has installed ShotSpotter at three locations. In January, ShotSpotter tracking led to the arrests of three men who allegedly fired at mourners outside a funeral home.

Noting that San Francisco spent more than $50 million in 2007 to treat gun injuries, police Lt. Mikail Ali, a senior advisor in the mayor's criminal justice office, said it would be worthwhile to expand the gunshot-detection system.

"You can't just turn the system on and mysteriously have a decrease in gunfire," Ali added. "Like any other tool, it's not the tool itself, it's the carpenter behind the tool."

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
[Get Copyright Permissions]Click here for copyright permissions!
Copyright 2008 Associated Press
 
It's like any other technology, a lot depends on who is using it and how. Sometimes it will locate the shot down to the foot, sometimes it picks up stuff that isn't gun shots. The dispatcher can also listen to the sound to determine if he or she thinks it's really a gun shot. I think the dispatch supervisor (Sgt or LT) can as well.
 
Another way to "dummy down" good ole' fashioned police work.[thinking]

wait wait wait, police work, defined as "to file reports and maybe serve" isnt already dumbed down? The nature of the fact that a police officer cannot protect anything/anyone means it cant be dumbed down anymore.
 
wait wait wait, police work, defined as "to file reports and maybe serve" isnt already dumbed down? The nature of the fact that a police officer cannot protect anything/anyone means it cant be dumbed down anymore.

That's not police work either. That's bureaucracy.
 
More attempts by the police to solve crimes AFTER they occur rather than BEFORE they occur.
 
Another way to "dummy down" good ole' fashioned police work.[thinking]


Somebody please tell me why this statement deserved a anonymous neg-rep? You left the comment "we work hard for you to be able to say that". Why don't you explain that to me.

The abuse of neg-reps is unbelievable.

Man up and discuss it.
 
Last edited:
Somebody please tell me why this statement deserved a anonymous neg-rep?

The abuse of neg-reps is unbelievable.

Man up and discuss it.

Because sprinkled in with legitimate posters - looking for information, debate and an outlet for their opinions - is a small legion of asshats who lack the balls to debate in the open. They voice their opinion with anonymous negative rep points - unsigned of course, because cowardice and asshattery are their primary strengths...

I balanced thing out for you HC....[cheers]
 
Somebody please tell me why this statement deserved a anonymous neg-rep? You left the comment "we work hard for you to be able to say that". Why don't you explain that to me.

The abuse of neg-reps is unbelievable.

Man up and discuss it.

Added it back for you.
 
You do know that a shot spotter's microphones can be used for regular audio monitoring, correct? It doesn't just show a blip on a screen when a loud noise goes off.
 
You mean all the ones in the inner city?

The article says this system is in use in many cities with many more applying for funding. A lot of cities have gun clubs and they are not sound proof so I am not sure what you are trying to say here.[thinking]
 
Not having any knowledge of this system, the one thought that popped into my mind, in regards to the BPD officer complaining about the system is "is he worried that they'd spend money on that rather than hiring more officers, pay raises, giving more training, or similar"?

While this smacks of Big Brother, I have to wonder it's just another tool to solve crime, like CCTV. Not infallible, just another tool.
 
Not having any knowledge of this system, the one thought that popped into my mind, in regards to the BPD officer complaining about the system is "is he worried that they'd spend money on that rather than hiring more officers, pay raises, giving more training, or similar"?
The guys is a FORMER BPD officer. He has nothing to gain if the system is scrapped and more cops are hired.

He's calling it like it is.
 
Back
Top Bottom