View Poll Results: Pick one of the top two response, and any of the remaining three.

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • ShotSpotter is a useless invasion of our civil rights.

    4 44.44%
  • ShotSpotter is a good tool, and if used wisely, will serve our communities well.

    4 44.44%
  • I'm concerned that it will be used to blindly nab everyone who fires a shot, regardless.

    3 33.33%
  • I believe most LE departments possess the skills necessary to separate criminal shots from others.

    2 22.22%
  • hat's "ShotSpotter?" Pardon me while I read the article given in the link.

    0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: The ShotSpotter Poll!

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    The ShotSpotter Poll!

    Before you answer, here's a recent article detailing this technology, and here are two older threads -- one and two -- you might want to review first.

    The poll is multiple choice, but please answer only one of the first two options. Choose the best answer(s) for the remaining questions.

    - since9
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    It seems to me that ShotSpotter is some pretty cool technology. The sample recording sounded like any recording I've ever made. Recording conversations would be the most concerning to me. Fortunately, any recorded conversation by ShotSpotter, if used as evidence, would not stand up in court. At least one of the participants in the conversation must consent to the recording in most states. Good try, but my right to privacy is at stake here.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    330
    "To calibrate the system, Sullivan said police sometimes have to go out and do test firings in which they’ll fire off a dozen shots into the air."

    Really? What goes up must come down, right? I wonder if someone had been wounded from one of these "strays" who would have been charged.

    I do like the technology. It seems to have very solid and simple algorithms for the process which makes it very reliable.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    It would be better if they fired into a receptacle designed to stop bullets. However, firing into the air is not as dangerous as many think. The bullet will reach a terminal velocity on the way down that is a fraction of the muzzle velocity.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It would be better if they fired into a receptacle designed to stop bullets. However, firing into the air is not as dangerous as many think. The bullet will reach a terminal velocity on the way down that is a fraction of the muzzle velocity.
    If some cop is going to come out and cuff & stuff me for shooting into the air, I want the cop cuffed & stuffed when he shoots into the air. There are all sorts of bullet traps that can be used to safely fire off rounds in order to test the sensitivity of the device. Failing to use such a bullet trap is gross negligence.

    As for the poll, I'm still looking for the response that says "The technology has not proven itself in real-world tests to my satisfaction." [quote[Sullivan said there have been instances in which police were on the scene so fast after a shooting, they’ve witnessed the shooter trying to hide the gun.[/quote] does not put the cops in the right place often enough to make that anything but blind luck.

    The biggest problem is
    One of the things police have learned with ShotSpotter is how rarely people call 911 to report gunshots, he said.

    Often when shots ring out, people in the vicinity scatter and look for a place to hide; they make sure everyone is OK, and then they think about calling the police, Sullivan said. Many times they don’t even call. .... In some sections of the city, like the streets of Hollywood in the South End or Pine and Central streets in the Six Corners neighborhood, gunshots are relatively common and residents do not bother reporting every time they hear a shot.
    Until you change that, all the technology in the world is meaningless as far s I'm concerned.

    stay safe.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Shovelhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NO VA, ,
    Posts
    355
    In many localities, it seems the Po-Po is employing Shot-Spotter to reduce the number of cops on patrol.
    That way, the only one in danger of being shot is the unarmed victim.
    It gives the cops time to pin-point the location, drive to the scene, draw a chalk outline around the victim, put up the "Do Not Cross" tape, and get the Police spokesperson to the location before the media camera trucks show up.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    I worked for a DOJ contractor for 10 years (starting in 1991) and part of what I did was write and assemble reports on "emerging technology". I remember when this tech came out, and I've seen a LOT of the preliminary data from the inventors, LEAs and the Feds as to it's potential applications in the field, when I was working in support of NLECTC.

    This tech has almost NOTHING to do with triangulating gunfire incidents. It CAN be used for that, but that is NOT what it was designed for, and that is NOT what it is being used for now, or in the future.

    This tech was fielded primarily to skirt wiretapping and privacy laws, so that people having conversations in public (specifically, people talking on cell phones) can be recorded without warrants. Period. End of discussion.

    People need to start designing solar-powered "pink noise generators" with powerful speakers to mount near these devices to bungle them up. Creative counter-surveillance is perfectly legal, ESPECIALLY in public places...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 11-19-2010 at 11:40 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    Big Brother has a new toy. reminds of a book called 1984
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It would be better if they fired into a receptacle designed to stop bullets. However, firing into the air is not as dangerous as many think. The bullet will reach a terminal velocity on the way down that is a fraction of the muzzle velocity.
    "Based on the results of these tests it was concluded that the bullet return velocity was about 300 f.p.s. For the 150 gr. bullet this corresponds to an energy of 30 foot pounds. Earlier the Army had determined that, on the average, it required 60 foot pounds of energy to produce a disabling wound. Based on this information, a falling 150 gr. service bullet would not be lethal, although it could produce a serious wound." - Source

    My 9 mm carry loads are 147 grain. Out of the muzzle, they're traveling roughly 950 fps. Given the above, they're terminal velocity is close to 300 fps (207 mph). I used to hunt rabbits with steel ball slingshot, and the load was travelling about 200 mph. The ball was just a little larger, but the same mass, as my 9 mm loads.

    It would embed itself in the rabbit about 2-4 inches.

    Put simply, firing into the air is a bad idea. Any round which comes down hitting a human will do some damage, at the very least, will probably be serious, and could potentially be fatal.

    If you must test-fire your weapon, go to the shooting range. That's what it's for. As for me, which I'm clearing my firearm at home, I aim the barrel into a hamper full of dirty laundry.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •