Responding to ShotSpotter, Police Shoot at Child Lighting Fireworks
www.eff.org
This post was written by Rachel Hochhauser, an EFF legal internWe’ve written multiple times about the inaccurate and dangerous “gunshot detection” tool, Shotspotter. A recent near-tragedy in Chicago adds to the growing pile of evidence that cities should drop the product.On January 25, while...

Three officers approached the boy’s house, with one asking “What you doing bro, you good?” They heard a loud bang, later determined to be fireworks, and shot at the child. Fortunately, no physical injuries were recorded. In initial reports, police falsely claimed that they fired at a “man” who had fired on officers.

In a subsequent assessment of the event, the Chicago Civilian Office of Police Accountability (“COPA”) concluded that “a firearm was not used against the officers.” Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling placed all attending officers on administrative duty for 30 days and is investigating whether the officers violated department policies.

ShotSpotter is the largest company which produces and distributes audio gunshot detection for U.S. cities and police departments. Currently, it is used by 100 law enforcement agencies.

Experts have long been warning of these tools’ the inaccuracy.

  • ianovic69@feddit.ukEnglish
    3·
    2 months ago

    Thanks for your reply and interesting points. I’ll try and argue against them as I see it.

    there are so many guns in circulation that it will still be easy to get illegal guns.

    True. However, is that a good reason not to make it more difficult? Isn’t any time a good time to do that?

    A huge amount of the country is rural, and they want guns for wild animals/security/etc.

    This is about regulation and those who need guns for certain situations would be catered for. I’m not really aware of similar levels of incidents in Canada, which I think is due largely to regulation.

    For any serious gun control to work, the Mexican border would need to be secured.

    I’ve no idea what the figures are, but I’m guessing that a very large amount of weapons involved in gun crime are made in the US. If you take that out of the equation, gun crime will reduce. Border control won’t make as much difference as regulating guns, if at all.

    3d printed guns

    It’s definitely a concern, but I’d be more concerned in places that don’t have strong gun regulation in the first place.

    Passing strong gun laws will be problematic for those people

    Good, it will make it less likely for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them as easily. If you should have them then you should be able to make a strong case for having them. That’s not a bad thing.

    while being unlikely to actually reduce the availability of illegal guns.

    As I said, I don’t see how it wouldn’t. Regulation means enforcement. Nothing will stop it completely but making it more difficult will reduce it drastically. And it’s not just the supply, it’s also the ownership. Making it more difficult to buy and own guns will make supply go down because many of the people who just want them won’t bother, it will be too much hassle to be worth bothering with.

    my main point is it’s not a simple as “ban guns”.

    I’m not advocating for a ban, just strong and enforced regulation.

    2nd amendment and the idea that the American people have a responsibility to stay armed enough to hold their government accountable through force if needed.

    How’s that going for you? Seriously, you think the people out there committing gun crime are going to join together into some kind of super people’s army and take down the government?

    Or all the fucked up kids who steal dad’s gun to shoot up their school?

    No, all the dads will join the neighborhood watch groups and march on the White House. Any time now.

    Sorry to be cynical about it but that’s nonsense. I do think that Americans should get together and vote for leaders who regulate guns. That would be a good place to start.