• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Police use ShotSpotter technology to combat gun violence

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
27,939
Likes
20,194
Feedback: 123 / 0 / 0
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/police_use_high_technology_to.html


By PATRICK JOHNSON
[email protected]

SPRINGFIELD - On a computer in the dispatch center at police headquarters, one can play back the audio from the last few moments of Alberto L. Rodriguez's life.

Pow! Pow! Pow! Pow!

It's the sound of four crisp, evenly paced gunshots ripping through the night on Pine Street in the heart of the city's Six Corners neighborhood.

Rodriguez was shot and killed Oct. 14. He died at Baystate Medical Center. He was found in his car on Ashley Street, suffering from multiple gunshot injuries after going off the road and slamming into a parked vehicle. Police said Rodriguez apparently lost control of his car and crashed as he was fleeing from the shooter who remains at large.

The sound of the gunshots was recorded by a new police audio surveillance tool known as ShotSpotter that is taking hold in cities across the country that are plagued gun violence.

The system was installed without fanfare in July in high-crime neighborhoods covering about 3 square miles. At a cost of $450,000, the city purchased 62 audio sensors and the operating software from ShotSpotter Inc., a private company based in California.


Screenshot of the ShotSpotter system (click to enlarge).
Springfield police say the system should increase public safety by greatly increasing the speed with which police can respond to gunfire. Faster response times means a better chance of catching the shooter as well as getting aid to any wounded, police said.

"It cuts response times from three or four minutes to less than a minute," said Patrolman Carl D. Prairie, the department's technical systems manager.

It can take a minute or more for a resident hearing a gunshot to get to the phone and call 911, he said.

ShotSpotter can pinpoint the location of the shooting, down to within a few feet, and display it on a map for the dispatcher in less than 15 seconds, Prairie said.

In the Rodriguez shooting, cruisers were already racing to the area of 157 Pine St. before he crashed his car two blocks away from where he was shot.

Police never did get a 911 call about gunshots on Pine Street that night, according to Sgt. John M. Delaney, aide to Commissioner William J. Fitchet. Someone called to report the accident but not the gunshots, he said.

Without the ShotSpotter system, police might never have found the crime scene, he said.

Prairie said that is one of the advantages of the system.

"We get to pinpoint the location. When people call 911, unless they see it firsthand, they don't know the exact location," he said. "Plus we can play it back and have forensics that we never had before."


The department would like to expand the initial coverage area, but with the cost at $250,000 for each additional square mile, it will take some time. Springfield has an area of 32 square miles.

The system has yet to net any arrests, Delaney said, but he is confident that will change. "It's just a matter of time," he said.

It's also a matter of time until Springfield begins seeing other results from ShotSpotter, says Jack Pontious, the company's eastern regional sales manager.

Based on the track record of other cities using the detection system, Springfield over the next year should see firearms arrests go up and shooting incidents go down, he said. "There will also be a significant reduction in gunfire activities all around the sensors," Pontious said.

With police responding in seconds instead of minutes, the people shooting guns have a greater chance of getting caught before they can leave the scene, he said.

Company literature says ShotSpotter cities see on average a 35-percent reduction in violent crime and a 60 to 80 percent decline in gun fire.

The ShotSpotter technology has been around for about a dozen years, but only took off within law enforcement over the past five years.

The FBI in 2004 used the system in Columbus, Ohio, to track down a roving sniper who was terrorizing motorists on Interstate 270. The system led investigators right to the spot where the sniper had fired a shot. There, investigators found physical evidence which resulted in the arrest and conviction of a man.

The system is not a cure-all for urban violence, but it does help, according to Pontious. "It's just a tool," he said. "Without good police work, it's not going to be as effective."

Since 2004, ShotSpotter has been installed in 31 cities, including Washington, D.C., Oakland, Los Angeles, Chicago, Rochester, N.Y., and Gary, Ind.

In New England, Boston installed it a year ago, and New Haven, Conn., is supposed to go on line in the next month, Pontious said. Another 10 cities are in varying stages of planning and installation, he said.

Gary, Ind., police used ShotSpotter to crack down on celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve 2006. Forty-five illegal guns were confiscated in one night.

Washington, D.C. police in September, 2007, were able to exonerate a police officer in the death of a 14-year-old suspect. The system was able to distinguish between the officer's 9mm and the suspect's .45 caliber handguns and determine the suspect opened fire first.

ShotSpotter works through a process the company calls "acoustic triangulation." As many as 15 to 20 sensors per square mile are spread out on rooftops and calibrated to detect loud noises like gunshots, motorcycles, firecrackers, or even engine backfiring.

"They listen for anything that goes bang, really," Pontious said.

When a sensor detects a loud noise, it keys in on the general direction from which the sound comes and relays it to a computer in the police station. The computer is able to take all the data from various sensors and combine it to get an exact position for where the gun was fired, Pontious said. It can also determine if the sound is a gunshot, firecracker or an engine backfiring, he said.

Since ShotSpotter has been online in Springfield, the number of gunshots police have responded to has actually increased by 60 percent, Prairie said. There have not been any more gun activity as much as police are now learning about more of them.

Gun shots have become so common in some neighborhoods that many residents never bother calling police to report them, he said. "We seldom get calls for shots fired," he said, adding that "people have become immune to gunshots" in some urban areas.

In fact, when the department was testing the sensors after installation, technicians fired off a total of 90 rounds in different locations, according to Prairie. "We got four phone calls," he said.

Residents need not worry that the sensor system poses a means for government to eavesdrop on their lives. The sensors are calibrated to detect gunshots and other loud noises but are not so sensitive that they can pick up conversations at street level, he said.

Sometimes after a gunshot, they will pick up screaming or the squeal of a fleeing vehicle but "we can't hear conversational voices from where we are," he said.

"We're not 'Big Brother' looking to listen to private conversations."

-----


This will do nothing to deter crime.
 
Cops have to use things like this cause folks won't tell them crap.And when they do it's a lie.Ya,I'm way out of line here.
 
...Today.

But they are using the system to catch illegal fireworks displays today... See the screenshot in the original article if you don't believe me.

PS: Based on the UI control, the list of sounds this thing can distinguish is rather long, on the order 10-15.
 
Last edited:
Cops have to use things like this cause folks won't tell them crap.And when they do it's a lie.Ya,I'm way out of line here.

I don't blame the cops so much for using these tools. I blame our legiscritters for allowing it. People have the right to talk or not talk to cops. Cops are tasked with the job of investigating crime. That means using new and innovative tools in conjunction with old fashioned police work. What's disgusting,though is that the police dept's get funding for this orwellian tool from a .gov who is tasked with protecting our rights.
 
No surprise here that I have no problem with this technology as one has no expectation of privacy while out in public.

What I find interesting from a legal point of view is what is law enforcement going to do when the information reveals that the gunshots came from inside of a private residence?
 
No surprise here that I have no problem with this technology as one has no expectation of privacy while out in public.

What I find interesting from a legal point of view is what is law enforcement going to do when the information reveals that the gunshots came from inside of a private residence?

Unless the windows are open, I doubt a shot would sound like a gun shot in that case. It may be muffled enough to not even be heard.
 
I may be out of line here since this is the first I’ve heard of this and I haven’t really had a good chance to think it through. (So why post you ask?)

Cost aside, I like it. It targets criminals while leaving the lawful gun owners alone. It’s not trying to restrict my owning a gun in the name of getting guns off the street. In fact I think could even help our cause by reducing the illegal guns and taking them out of the news. If guns aren’t in the news there isn’t any political capital to gain by passing useless laws against lawful gun owners.

My only worry is that the politicians will give credit for less gun violence to the dumb ass laws they wrote and not the system catching criminals.

Just my first impression so if I’m wrong, flame away.
 
[Washington, D.C. police in September, 2007, were able to exonerate a police officer in the death of a 14-year-old suspect. The system was able to distinguish between the officer's 9mm and the suspect's .45 caliber handguns and determine the suspect opened fire first.

My first two thoughts on this were:
1 - Bullshit.
bs.gif
Everyone knows that guns are banned in DC (or were in '07 [smile]), so that kid couldn't possibly have had a gun.

and 2 - Damn... they're giving the cops 9s and the 14 year old KIDS are shooting .45s???
 
Thats fine and dandy but if we have technical systems like this they are going to "say why do people need to carry guns wile we have this in place"? [wink]
 
I may be out of line here since this is the first I’ve heard of this and I haven’t really had a good chance to think it through. (So why post you ask?)

Cost aside, I like it. It targets criminals while leaving the lawful gun owners alone. It’s not trying to restrict my owning a gun in the name of getting guns off the street. In fact I think could even help our cause by reducing the illegal guns and taking them out of the news. If guns aren’t in the news there isn’t any political capital to gain by passing useless laws against lawful gun owners.

My only worry is that the politicians will give credit for less gun violence to the dumb ass laws they wrote and not the system catching criminals.

Just my first impression so if I’m wrong, flame away.

That shouldn't be your only concern. So long as this system is setup to only read gun shots, then fine. But as I pointed out above, it is capable of doing a lot more. That means it can be abused. Your point about who this targets is valid though it would be nice if they stopped them before they got a chance to pull the trigger since past performance in the courts is to let them go so they can do it again. In that case, the person hit/injured/killed ended up dying for nothing. If the quality of prosecution of such crimes wasn't sub par, then maybe their (& their families) pain and suffering would have at least been mitigated by a longer term gain.
 
Thats fine and dandy but if we have technical systems like this they are going to "say why do people need to carry guns wile we have this in place"? [wink]
Because by the time the police react to this, someone has to be SHOT first. All the cops can do is clean up the bodies.
 
No surprise here that I have no problem with this technology as one has no expectation of privacy while out in public.

What I find interesting from a legal point of view is what is law enforcement going to do when the information reveals that the gunshots came from inside of a private residence?

yes people do have the expectation of some privacy on public, namely from their government peering over their shoulders all the time. This presents the beginning of the slippery slope that the police would love to get rolling if they had their ways. I make no apologies for my disgust of your statements.
 
No surprise here that I have no problem with this technology as one has no expectation of privacy while out in public.

What I find interesting from a legal point of view is what is law enforcement going to do when the information reveals that the gunshots came from inside of a private residence?

Cops have to use things like this cause folks won't tell them crap.And when they do it's a lie.Ya,I'm way out of line here.


[rolleyes][sad2]
 
yes people do have the expectation of some privacy on public, namely from their government peering over their shoulders all the time.


Please explain to me your legal basis for thinking you have an expectation of privacy out in public.


This presents the beginning of the slippery slope that the police would love to get rolling if they had their ways. I make no apologies for my disgust of your statements.


My statements are based upon law. Which is why I posed the question I posed. IMO Your disgust is misguided.
 
Please explain to me your legal basis for thinking you have an expectation of privacy out in public.

I did. This is the first tep to the government watching EVERY move. Of course, cops will love it and will give arguments like "it will help prevent crime". Honestly, get back to me when the police actually become something more than a "too-late, reactionary measure."

Im not talking privacy like not being seen, doing things in public that should be done in private, but the right for people to not be hounded and spied on by their government. I figured you wouldn't get it, you work for "them."



My statements are based upon law. Which is why I posed the question I posed. IMO Your disgust is misguided.


What law would that be? Regardless, disgust for a law extends to disgust of those who drafted the law. My disgust is towards those who would breach privacy of people with the guise of "safety".
 
Once the shots are fired its already too late... what a stupid waste of time and money. Hope you enjoy your continued taxes MA!

ABSOLUTELY!!!!

Seems to me the most telling line of the story is this:

Rodriguez was shot and killed Oct. 14.

Now I don't know this guy, maybe he was involved in gangs or drug deal gone bad, but maybe he was a hard working guy denied the ability to protect himself but a GFW of a COP.
 

You did? I failed to see the cite that states that one has a legal expectation of privacy out in public.


but the right for people to not be hounded and spied on by their government.

Where is this right you speak of as it pertains to being out in public?


I figured you wouldn't get it, you work for "them."

Actually..I work for you![wink]
 
You did? I failed to see the cite that states that one has a legal expectation of privacy out in public.




Where is this right you speak of as it pertains to being out in public?




Actually..I work for you![wink]



so you dont deny that you think government should be spying on its constituents. Fantastic. EOM.
 
Just curious:

Do all you nay-sayers actually know anything about law enforcement, personnel budgets, crime cluster manning or anything of the like?

Or are you just shooting your mouths off?
 
so you dont deny that you think government should be spying on its constituents. Fantastic. EOM.


I am saying that they have the legal right to in public...big difference!!

I don't think police should be able to buy guns in Ma that others can't...but we can!!

I do not write the laws.
 
Last edited:
Just curious:

Do all you nay-sayers actually know anything about law enforcement, personnel budgets, crime cluster manning or anything of the like?

Or are you just shooting your mouths off?

no but I know a thing or two about government turning citizens into subjects. Hell, I live in MA.
 
no but I know a thing or two about government turning citizens into subjects. Hell, I live in MA.


You need to get out more..MA is way behind the 8-ball on this subject. MA is much more restrictive on it's police than other states when it comes to electronic surveillance.
 
Originally Posted by Half Cocked
Please explain to me your legal basis for thinking you have an expectation of privacy out in public.

Why should a citizen in public not breaking the law, not harming another person, not causing a problem in public not expect privacy?

Why not beat the crap out of the homeless because they are forced to live in public with little to no means because they live in the public? Are those people not entitled to some of our rights or is it just the people with jobs and homes that have these rights?

The bigger question to be asked is why do the authorities always rely on data that is after fact when they impose on people's rights. Where is all that proactive work they could be doing? Just because we pay for abuse it doesn't mean we have to like it.

Spying on non hostile citizens didn't work for the "Patriot Act" and it won't work at the local levels either. The word for the day is PREVENTION
 
Back
Top Bottom