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

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.

"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.

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Until you change that, all the technology in the world is meaningless as far s I'm concerned.

stay safe.

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.

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...

Big Brother has a new toy. reminds of a book called 1984

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.