Minneapolis to vote on gunfire sensors

[Nortonics]

Interesting story - where better than Murderapolis?!

Minneapolis to vote on gunfire sensors

The Minneapolis City Council will vote Friday morning on a new system that detects the sound of gunfire, allowing police to respond more quickly to possible crimes.

The system detects the acoustic signature of gunshots and even the sound of a bullet as it travels through the air. It uses 10 to 12 sensors per square mile to pinpoint gunfire to within 75 feet.

"If response time is predictably swift, then criminals have a much less friendly environment to operate in, and that deters a lot of people,” says Minneapolis City Council Member Don Samuels, who represents the city’s North side.

Samuels told residents of his district that he will vote for the Shot Spotter technology.

The system would cost about $400,000 per year.

Samuels says it is worth the price.

"We're talking about saving lives. So it almost goes without saying that it will be worth it."

Shot Spotter CEO James Beldock says the system is so accurate it has reduced crime in some cities by 33 percent.

"If more than one shot is fired from a vehicle, we can tell you the speed of the vehicle and what road it's on," Beldock says.

The system’s sensors are hidden in units the size of a coffee can, and criminals cannot detect them.

"They have no idea where the system is deployed,” says Beldock.

The city council is expected to approve the system. Mayor R.T. Rybak says he will sign the council’s approval.

[gb_in_ga]

While it is better to have such a system than to not have such a system, from a police response standpoint, it still has 1 basic flaw: By the time that the police have gotten there, the victim has already been shot.

So -- they spend a lot of money to better catch the criminals, but even then it is after the fact.

Does this do anything to take the BG from the streets? Well, maybe and maybe not. That is for the DA and the courts to decide. And that is another catch. If they catch the BG and then just slap him on the hand and turn him loose, all of that high dollar equipment has gone to waste. Without meaningful enforcement it is all just a waste of the taxpayers' money.

So, what else does it do? Well, it makes the police that much more able to get to the scene of the shooting that much faster -- meaning that the officer can make his report over a body that hasn't cooled off as much.

What good does this do for the victim? Well, if the victim is still alive it means that the survival chances will improve some, but if the victim is DRT it doesn't help at all. Meaning -- the need for CCW for the citizenry is still just as vital. But don't expect for the powers that be up there to admit to that.

[kozak6]

Well, they're certainly going to have a lot of trouble on New Year's and the Fourth of July.

[Trip20]

Samuels says it is worth the price.

"We're talking about saving lives. So it almost goes without saying that it will be worth it."

Bolding mine.

BS. It's about catching criminals. Don't dress it up.

[Daily Fred]

We don't need more ways of catching criminals. We need better ways of getting them past the defense attorneys, into prison, and keeping them there.

[MeekAndMild]

OK, so the thugs will just wait until a thunderstorm to shoot somebody.

[croyance]

Didn't they try this in a Southern state? Wasn't it a colossal failure?

[jcims]

I don't know the situation in Minnesota (other than it's cold!), but from my perspective this is better than taking more pictures or grabbing more guns. +1 from me.

[Mike40-11]

The system would cost about $400,000 per year.

?!? I realize you have to maintain the sensors and the system but .

Could probably round up a dozen web geeks who would build the whole thing for less than that, then run it on somebodys left over Pentium 3 they found in the basement.

[BlueTrain]

I don't know if the system would be practical or not or even if it would work. Traffic cameras apparently work very well and generate a lot of income for the jurisdiction in the form of traffic tickets. Whether that is their primary purpose or not is beside the point.

But the question of what the primary purpose is, is central to the issue. The way you define or state the goal can make all the difference in whether or not the project is a success.

As an example, in the early part of WWII, the British armed some small ships with nothing more than light machine guns. There was some thought to removing the guns because they could be put to good use elsewhere instead. But after some reflection, it was realized that fewer ships were being sunk by aircraft when they had these machine guns in spite of the fact that they hardly ever shot down any planes. So the question was, were the machine guns there to shoot down planes or to keep ships from being sunk? It all depends on how you state your object.

In the case of gunfire sensors, it might result in more people being hit on the head instead of being shot--but you don't have to shoot someone to rob them. How many bank robberies involve shooting anyway? The irony here is the system has to be well publicised in order to have any effect and any potentional shooters (the only ones it makes a difference to) must be well informed.

But I thought Minneapolis was a nice safe city anyway. With the Skyway you don't even have to go outside. Or was I thinking of St. Paul?

[Bud Helms]

Well, it's not a crime until it's done. You're not a criminal until you've done it. For every crime there's a criminal, so think about this:

So -- they spend a lot of money to better catch the criminals, but even then it is after the fact.

How else could it be? If you catch the criminal BEFORE he commit's the crime, whom have you caught. Not a criminal, you prevented that. That's crime prevention? Think it's a good thing?

We decry the passing of laws that criminalize us for possession of hardware that we feel is our birth right to have and hold. Yet we allow ourselves to adopt the beliefs and principles of the latest gov't campaign, complete with slogans and sound bites. At this point in American history, you would have to be an anarchist or a career criminal to be against crime prevention measures, right? Think again.

You don't have to be anti-LEO to be anti-crime prevention. Neighborhood programs and local gov't sponsored volunteer programs, i.e., Neighborhood Watch, are not a problem because they're volunteer programs. That is being watchful and taking reponsibility. The problem is the federal gubmint taking charge and doing it for us.

Just as the caution goes out to 10th Amendment advocates to "be careful what you wish for", the same caution goes out to those that want federal programs to make their neighborhoods safe. That seems to relieve them of any effort or responsibility. They just have to pay and comply ... and roll the dice that they won't be the next innocent casualty in crime prevention, because crime prevention that arrests, indicts, tries and sentences before a crime is committed, is a crime.

Get it straight. Crime prevention is not law enforcement.

Think about it.

[Edited to remove a short discussion about prior restraint.]

[carbiner]

It's just another bandaid on an already infected wound.

That same city council has cut the police force. MPLS has an enormous amount of welfare spending, high taxation, businesses moving out, and a growing gang problem.

It was just recently reported up here that overall crime is up 20-30% in MPLS alone.

Mpls high school drop out rate hovers around 38%, drugs have peaked. Theres a saying up here, we get em fitted for prison clothes while their still young.

North MPLS is a dangerous place in the day, but at night it's a shoot out.

The Startribune is VERY selective on how and what it reports on crime, and has only praise for a far leftwing political structure in that city.

I wrote a letter to Archie Raybeck and told him what a shameful job he has has done just before I moved out.

The city council and the mayor are very far to the left of any sensible thinking American.

[gb_in_ga]

Bud --

I understand where you care coming from and agree.

I apologize to you if my words did not reflect my meaning. I did not write what I did to suggest pre-emptive arrests or government busybodying, in fact my thoughts on the matter are quite the opposite.

My thoughts on the matter are that, from the victim's perspective, this does nothing to help. The victim is still hurt or dead. The police still can't effectively be everywhere protecting everybody, hence the primary responsibilty for the individual citizen's protection lies with that citizen. It has to be that way.

Better perp apprehension rates (which is what this is intended to bring) does nobody any good if the justice system fails to incarcerate those perps -- all it does is increase the number of trips through the system for the perps.

My solution is twofold:

A> Actually incarcerate the perps that you do catch. Yes, we do have the justice system that we have, and it has the potential to be a good one, the best and most fair in the world -- if properly applied. Slapping those who are found guilty on the hand and quickly turning them loose on the public is counterproductive. Worse than useless. The cure for the current maladies along these lines lies with electing "tough" DA's, judges and parole boards (assuming, of course, that those offices are elected in the respective jurisdictions).

B> Allowing the citizenry to be armed. This is the direction that I was actually going with the quotation you cited. Make it so that the victims aren't helpless -- or if the victims are helpless it is by choice.

The direction I was going was that the detector is reactive in nature. The criminal has the initiative, and any response made pertaining to the criminal has to be made after the fact. Compare this to a more proactive approach. No, not arresting the perp before the fact, for the reasons you bring forth. Instead, I propose that credible deterrent be present at the time of the commission of the felony. No, the police can't be there, they have no crystal balls and there is no way that they can be everywhere all at the same time. The only one guaranteed to be there besides the perp is the victim, hence the victim has to be the bearer and wielder of the deterrent. That necessarily implies -- universal access to concealed carry for the general citizenry -- shall issue.

THAT is where I was going with this thing.

[Bud Helms]

gb ... I understand completely. No offense taken at all and none intended. No need to apologize.

It struck a note. And this love affair with crime prevention sticks in my craw. Mainly because I was part of the herd (flock - baaaaaaa) on this kind of thing for so long.

[Nortonics]

It's been a year since this original thread, and now automatic cameras have been added to the mix:

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S91281.shtml?cat=1

Minneapolis approves $1.1 million surveillance camera plan

Minneapolis is taking its new shot-spotter technology and pairing it with new surveillance cameras.

The 50 cameras will track gunshots and crime in north Minneapolis.

A city council committee approved the $1.1 million price tag Monday.

"They really do help cut crime and help us identify criminals," Minneapolis City Council President Barb Johnson said.

Cameras have already been installed in Downtown and southeast Minneapolis.

The full council could vote on the plan by Friday-- with the cameras being installed in late June.

[Crosshair]

Living in North Dakota, I see that we will probably be selling alot of fireworks to people from MN. Light a saturn missle battery and watch the cameras go crazy. Heck, with 4,000 firecrackers ($40 worth if you buy the good ones.) and several cartons of cigarettes, you could keep that system on red alert for a year.

So if anything, this will mean criminals will just have to use stolen cars for their drive by shootings, use a baseball bat/knife/whatever. After all those issues, the cameras are probably gona get plenty of bullet holes.

[mrawesome22]

I just don't know about this country anymore. Where will the insanity end.

[dakotashooter2]

I heard it REALLY IS working. They have already caught and arrested over a dozen people firing their starter guns at high school track meets.

[TimRB]

"Didn't they try this in a Southern state? Wasn't it a colossal failure?"

They tried it in East Palo Alto, here in California, and yes, it was a colossal failure.

Tim

[Nortonics]

Far from failure, it's a proven and close to 100% accurate system. These systems are so advanced and fully proven at this stage that fireworks and ignition backfires never set off these systems. Go to the shot-spotter web site and read all about it, as well as the multitudes of communities that have or are installing the systems needed. Be sure and watch the "Tech Closeup" video with the link in the middle of their home page - very informative.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is these systems are money very well spent. Add up what extra officers cost for a year at minimum, then tally the difference and you too will see that cost per performance these systems cannot be beat.

Don't just **** these systems off as BS - they work, and work incredibly well. Educate yourself before your local govt. educates you against your will...

[mrawesome22]

Oh brother. I suppose you were all for the Patriot Act also Nortonics?

And *** have these big cities been reduced to when they have to start using gunshot sensors? Most of these murders in big cities are "thugs" killing thugs. Or trying to kill a fellow thug, missing, and killing a innocent bystandard. Shouldn't they being going after the root of the problem instaed of just putting a band aid on it?

And here is what I think the root of the problem is. Poor education. So these kids turn to the streets. Dad is in prison, so these kids have no discipline. They grow up idolizing rapper/thugs who promote gangs, violence, drugs, robberie, ect. They even have a name for this now. It's "The thug life". And if you don't live a thug life, ya izn't hod cor biatch!

I hope I'm getting my point across. Man I feel like Charlton Heston LOL.

[Crosshair]

OK Nortonics, riddle me this:
Has crime gone up or down in areas that employ this system?
How exactly does this deter crime or help catch criminals? OK, so a gun was fired. How does this help police? If a shooting happened that is of any significance, the police are going to find out about it without this fancy system. Someone is gona report it or someone is gona show up at the hospital with a bullet wound.
What is the cost/benifit ratio of this system. Is it actualy worth the cost or would money be better spent on other programs? From the info I have found, it costs about $200,000 to cover a square mile. I was not able to find maintenance costs, though they would probably be significant.
Sure this system MIGHT help in some minute way on gun crimes. How is it gona help detect the three thugs beating a guy with baseball bats.
All the data I have found says that this system really has not helped solved crimes that would not have been solved anyway.

This system is an extremely costly solution to a relativly minor problem when you look at the big picture. What about all the violent crimes that occur without guns being fired? How will this system help those people? It won't.

[WeedWacker]

It might work but it will cost us inhabitants extra in the form of taxes. Cheaper solution: Everyone willing to participate, purcahse a pistol. Those who pass background checks go and qualify for the CCW permit which is given upon qualification and a written test (probably standardized)

Cost= paper and machines used for grading as well as mapower for classes. Will be cheaper adn with more guns on the street the criminals will be more reluctant to make their move.

[Nortonics]

Boys, the reason this and many other things work make sense for the cost is simply because there are many, many people in this World that are smrater than yous-selves.

[badbob]

ya izn't hod cor biatch!

Mrawesome, would you translate for those of us that are "ebonics challenged"?

badbob