'Shot catcher': how the USA is trying to fight mass shootings and does it work - ForumDaily
The article has been automatically translated into English by Google Translate from Russian and has not been edited.
Переклад цього матеріалу українською мовою з російської було автоматично здійснено сервісом Google Translate, без подальшого редагування тексту.
Bu məqalə Google Translate servisi vasitəsi ilə avtomatik olaraq rus dilindən azərbaycan dilinə tərcümə olunmuşdur. Bundan sonra mətn redaktə edilməmişdir.

'Shot Catcher': how the US is trying to fight mass shootings and does it work

“Shot catcher”: how effectively new technology helps cops respond to emergencies, reports BBC.

Photo: Shutterstock

The American startup ShotSpotter (can be translated as “catcher” or “shot detector”) has created equipment that, when installed on the streets, detects shots and immediately notifies police patrols about them.

Not everyone is happy: critics argue that the devices are imperfect, bombard police with fake calls, cause trouble for passers-by and contribute to racial discrimination.

ShotSpotter's operating room resembles a call center: people with headphones sit in front of monitors and listen intently.

These are the analysts who bear the main responsibility. They decide if the computer algorithm is right and if there really was an incident worthy of attention.

A mistake is fraught with unpleasant consequences. The firm and its technology have already garnered a lot of negative media coverage over the past year.

In response to criticism, the company has provided access to its operations room.

ShotSpotter is trying to solve a real and important problem.

“Our system looks tempting because 80-95% of the time shots are not reported,” says CEO Ralph Clark.

People do not dial “911” for various reasons: they hope that others will do so, they are not sure that they heard a gunshot, and some people do not like the police and do not trust them.

The founders of ShotSpotter came up with an idea: is it possible to do without calls from citizens.

Microphones are installed on any structure. When a loud sound is heard, the computer program determines if it is a shot or something else. The final decision is up to people.

Former teacher and now an analyst at ShotSpotter's operations room, Ginger Emmon invites you to watch her do it.

On the subject: Another tragedy struck on the set where Baldwin killed a Ukrainian cameraman

When a signal is received from the equipment, a bell sounds. Ginger Emmon listens to the audio recording and checks the wavy line on the screen.

“My goal is to see how many sensors recorded the bang, and whether it was directional, since the sound of a shot travels more strongly in the direction where it was fired,” explained Ginger Ammon.

If the result is positive, she presses the button and the information immediately goes to the nearest patrol. Everything takes an average of 60 seconds.

She says she often hears that the whole process is like a computer game.

Evidence of success

There is overwhelming evidence of the effectiveness of the new technology.

In April 2017, black supremacist Corey Ali Muhammad launched a series of attacks in Fresno, California.

In an effort to kill as many people as possible, he moved through a residential suburb, shooting at random victims.

The police received calls to 911, but late and without any details.

ShotSpotter devices were able to determine the route taken by the criminal. Three minutes later—and three murders later—he was apprehended.

Fresno police have no doubt that otherwise there would have been more deaths. "ShotSpotter gave us the right lead," says Lt. Bill Dooley.

Law enforcement officials find the company's arguments in favor of the new technology compelling. Her microphones are in more than a hundred cities in America. She did not raise objections to anyone.

Objections by human rights defenders

That all changed after the death of George Floyd [46-year-old African American who was arrested in Minneapolis on May 25, 2020]. Black Lives Matter activists have developed a keen interest in all aspects of police work, including the technical means they use.

ShotSpotter and its devices are also in the spotlight.

Microphones are too expensive to cover cities completely. The police place them in crime-prone areas, which are mainly areas with a high proportion of black population. This is seen as racial discrimination.

Doubts about accuracy

The company claims that its equipment is correct 97% of the time, and police officers, when alerted, can be confident that the shooting did take place.

But this claim is difficult to verify, at least based on the information the company provides to the public.

If the number of errors is large enough, then the law enforcement officers, having arrived at the place, begin to suspect and disturb innocent people who accidentally find themselves in the wrong place.

According to an audit conducted by the Department of the Inspector General of Public Safety of the City of Chicago, only 9% of trips on signals from ShotSpotter showed material traces of a firefight on the spot [killed, wounded, blood stains, abandoned weapons and cartridges].

“This is very little,” says Deputy Inspector General Deborah Witzburg.

This, of course, does not mean that 91% of the calls were false, but also not the fact that the shooting took place, and then innocent people have to enter into unpleasant explanations.

The sound of a shot can easily be confused with a firecracker explosion or a car exhaust.

“We rely on information from law enforcement agencies, which notify us whenever our sensors miss a shot or, conversely, give an erroneous signal,” says Ralph Clark, who is 100 percent confident in his technology.

Critics point out the imperfections of this technique. If the police remain unsure whether there was a shooting or not, they say nothing. Thus, the company counts all the “we don’t know,” “probably,” and “maybe” into its accurate results.

Chicago lawyer Brandon Max calls ShotSpotter's data "advertising nonsense."

“Customer feedback is good for finding out whether people like Pepsi or Coke better.” This is not a basis for judging the scientific nature of the method,” he says.

Conor Healy, an analyst at IPVM, a research group that evaluates the effectiveness of CCTV cameras, also doubts the 97% figure.

“Giving police officers full responsibility for reporting mistakes means expecting them to file reports about every little thing when nothing happened at all. It’s unlikely that employees will do this,” she says.

“It’s fair to think that if they [ShotSpotter] had done thorough testing, they would be extremely interested in publishing the results for everyone to see,” the expert said.

Crime is on the rise

In Fresno, Officer Nate Palomino on a night patrol in a police car.

The city has one of the worst firearm crime rates in California. As in many places in America, the situation there has only worsened over the past two years.

Here comes the signal from ShotSpotter.

Arriving at the place, he does not find cartridges or other evidence. Nate Palomino says the recorded sound was like a shot, and most likely it was, but it's difficult to prove.

According to him, this is a typical case.

The controversy continues

In principle, the reliability of the ShotSpotter system is beyond doubt. Across America, the data obtained with its help was used in courts as evidence by both the prosecution and the defense.

Opponents say it gives police officers an a priori disposition to use weapons.

The core of the concerns was expressed by the Chicago-based campaigner for the abandonment of ShotSpotter, Alexander Godwin.

“Imagine police officers responding to a call knowing in advance that they will encounter an armed person who, given the location of the alleged incident, is most likely African American or Hispanic,” he says.

“You are describing a situation where officers arrive and shoot unarmed people. This is pure innuendo!” — ShotSpotter CEO Ralph Clark objects.

According to him, such assumptions are not supported by facts.

At the same time, Clarke admits that the company's data on the number of errors may not be comprehensive.

“If someone says, 'Hey, look, you just don't have enough feedback on everything you do,' that might be a valid criticism,” he says.

Attorney Brendan Max believes that ShotSpotter's data should not be considered by the courts until the company provides more convincing evidence of their reliability.

“Over the last four or five months, dozens of Chicagoans have been arrested based on information from ShotSpotter, and I'm sure the same is true across America,” he says.

The lawyer requires additional information from the company: for example, how and by what criteria it recruits its analysts, and how often the computer data does not coincide with the conclusion of the person.

“We filter what we see,” says Ginger Ammon.

An interesting confession. It turns out that the system is not so all-hearing and omniscient, and the role of a person in decision-making is large.

Saved lives

ShotSpotter has received a lot of criticism over the past year - and not always deservedly so. Skeptics completely ignore the enthusiastic reviews of the police about her.

The company intends to inform the public more about cases when law enforcement officers, having arrived at the scene on time using ShotSpotter signals, rescued the seriously wounded.

In a number of cities, activists are trying to convince local authorities to break contracts with the firm, but the application of the system is expanding.

You may be interested in: top New York news, stories of our immigrants, and helpful tips about life in the Big Apple - read it all on ForumDaily New York.

Fresno Chief of Police Paco Balderrama is considering expanding the coverage of the streets with microphones at an additional $ XNUMX million a year.

“Even if ShotSpotter saves just one life a year, is it worth a million dollars? I think it's worth it! - he says.

The ShotSpotter controversy is complex and will have important implications for policing in American cities.

To move things further, an independent assessment of the effectiveness of the system and analysis of statistical data are needed.

Read also on ForumDaily:

Medicine in the USA: why the prices for the same services can vary greatly

Eight Southern California Dangers That Could Cost Your Life

Drinking lots of coffee is good: 3-4 cups a day may even protect against cancer

Miscellanea In the U.S. shooting mass shooting ShotSpotter
Subscribe to ForumDaily on Google News

Do you want more important and interesting news about life in the USA and immigration to America? — support us donate! Also subscribe to our page Facebook. Select the “Priority in display” option and read us first. Also, don't forget to subscribe to our РєР ° РЅР ° Р »РІ Telegram  and Instagram- there is a lot of interesting things there. And join thousands of readers ForumDaily New York — there you will find a lot of interesting and positive information about life in the metropolis. 



 
1082 requests in 1,130 seconds.