Quote:
|
A family party with fireworks is where you don't want armed police showing up. Shotspotter makes that less likely to happen. And if there is gunfire and you don't want police responding as rapidly as possible, then you are on the side of pain, disorder and violence.
|
You guys are helping to prove point. This claim has no supporting evidence and plainly states that if you disagree, you support more violence. The entirety of the argument is an appeal to emotion, with no data provided to support the conclusion.
I provided three separate studies showing it's limited effectiveness, but those just get thrown aside because of perceived bias. As if the police aren't also biased to support more funding for their department.
Ordo specifically called out the "benefit" of emergency services getting somewhere faster. The article I shared has the data. In the first 8 months of 2024, there were almost 30,000 Shot Spotter alerts. From those, 143 victims received aid. 136 of those (95%) also had a 911 call. That means that 29,850 times, there was no victim. That seems like a lot of wasted resources. I'm open to seeing more data, but nobody has provided it in this discussion.
I'm not saying that ShotSpotter doesn't work, I am saying that nobody has ever proven that it works. That is probably why cities (Charlotte, San Antonio, Atlanta, etc.) continue to cancel contracts. Do we believe violence in Chicago has improved since the implementation of ShotSpotter in 2012?
Threaded Mode