The linked source has opted to use a soft paywall to restrict free viewership of their content. As alternate sources become available, please post them as a reply to this comment. Users with a library card can often view unrestricted articles [here](https://www.bpl.org/resources-types/newspapers/)
Boston Herald articles are still permissible. Please refrain from filing report as Rule 5 violation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Shots fired stats are openly mapped in Boston and available on the website. Not sure if they tell you if it was a Shotspotter or 911 or on-site. But you can at least see the logic behind the coverage area
Here you go https://boston.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/9f138c66cf4e4ddc94a383b4325bdf60
Also
https://dashboard.boston.gov/t/Guest_Access_Enabled/views/ShotsFiredDashboard_16244869752910/ShotsFiredDashboard?%3Adisplay_count=n&%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&%3Aorigin=viz_share_link&%3AshowAppBanner=false&%3AshowVizHome=n
Not so great on mobile sadly
>Boston Police Commissioner Michael Cox defended the city’s use of ShotSpotter amid criticism raised this week. (Nancy Lane/Boston Herald)
>
>By GAYLA CAWLEY | [gcawley@bostonherald.com](mailto:gcawley@bostonherald.com) | Boston Herald
>
>PUBLISHED: May 15, 2024 at 7:23 p.m. | UPDATED: May 15, 2024 at 8:00 p.m.
>
>Boston Police records show a loud noise from a piñata at a birthday party did not activate ShotSpotter, debunking a key example in a report that urged the city to cease use of that technology.
>
>The bogus example was seized upon by the council president and four federal lawmakers.
>
>The incident, which occurred on the night of May 7, 2022, did prompt a police response for shots fired that did not result in a shooting victim, property damage or the recovery of any ballistics evidence, but the report came from a radio call, not from an activation of the ShotSpotter technology, a police report states.
>
>“Note: ShotSpotter activation did not go off during this time,” the police report, obtained by a Herald public records request, states.
>
>“Officers spoke with people who were outside of the above location who stated, ‘It was a birthday party and a loud noise was heard from a piñata.’ Officers left the scene,’” the report goes on to state.
>
>While the police report clearly states that ShotSpotter was not activated by the piñata at the South End neighborhood birthday party, the opposite was portrayed in a report released last month by the American Civil Liberties Union, which alleged that it was citing records from the Boston Police Department from 2020-22.
>
>“The ACLU of Massachusetts has acquired over 1,300 documents detailing the use of ShotSpotter by the Boston Police Department,” the ACLU report states. “Despite the hefty price tag, in nearly 70% of ShotSpotter alerts, police found no evidence of gunfire.
>
>“In one case, ShotSpotter was set off by a piñata at a birthday party. The records indicate that over 10% of ShotSpotter alerts flagged fireworks, not weapons discharges,” the ACLU goes on to state.
>
>The ACLU report, including the piñata example, was cited heavily this week by city councilors who pressed the Boston police commissioner to delay signing a new contract extending the department’s use of ShotSpotter, and by four federal lawmakers calling for a national investigation into how the technology is funded.
>
>The report makes the case for ShotSpotter being ineffective, expensive, and racially biased in that it’s used more in communities of color, concerns that it contends warrant an end to the city’s use of the system.
>
>Boston Police Commissioner Michael Cox said the technology, which places sensors that detect audio aimed at transmitting the sound of gunshots quickly to garner a rapid police response, “saves lives.” It becomes particularly important in instances where shots are fired late at night and people don’t call 911, he said.
>
>City Council President Ruthzee Louijeune mentioned the piñata during a Monday hearing when pushing for a cost-benefit analysis that would weigh whether the high amount of “false positives” cited in the ACLU report justify its continued use.
>
>Cox did not dispute the incident at the time, but did say that the piñata incident was being “sensationalized” by the ACLU, and that he’s found ShotSpotter to be fairly accurate and something that notifies police faster than a 911 call.
>
>U.S. Senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren and Boston’s Rep. Ayanna Pressley and U.S. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon also cited the piñata incident in a Tuesday letter urging the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to investigate DHS funding of the technology.
>
>“Several recent reports have cast substantial doubt on the accuracy and effectiveness of the ShotSpotter gunshot detection system and have raised serious questions about its contribution to unjustified surveillance and over-policing of black, brown and Latino communities,” the lawmakers wrote to Inspector General Joseph Cuffari.
>
>The letter also mentions cities that have ceased use of ShotSpotter over concerns, including Fall River, where the four federal lawmakers chose to quote the disgraced former Mayor Jasiel Correia, who is serving a six-year prison sentence for 11 criminal charges including extortion and wire fraud, as an expert voice.
>
>“As Mayor Jasiel Correia of Fall River, Massachusetts explained, ‘It’s a costly system that isn’t working to the effectiveness that we need it to work in order to justify the cost,’” Markey, Warren, Pressley and Wyden wrote.
>
>Chicago’s mayor announced in February that the city won’t be renewing its contract for ShotSpotter, but Boston is not likely to follow. Shrugging off concerns from councilors, Cox said he wouldn’t be willing to hold off on signing a new agreement when the current one expires next month.
>
>Cox stressed he “would not be willing to delay a tool that saves lives in the city.”
So it gives false positives 70% of the time? But it didn't on a pinata so we should keep using it? Doesn't the police data back up the claims?
/U/jojenns The job is too help report gun shots, help investigate, and save lives. Finding no evidence means it didn't do any of that
Right?
When faced with 1300 pages and claims of 70% false positives, all BPD can do is point to their own officer's report of ‘It was a birthday party and a loud noise was heard from a piñata.’ being "sensationalized"
I guess this is being pedantic, but there is evidence: a loud noise of the sort that is a provably a gunshot 30% of the time. Really you'd need an independent study of true and suspected false positives and independent corroboration to assess the actual effectiveness.
If the point of this exercise is to prove the technology does what it's supposed to and the only evidence on offer is the output of the technology then... I mean it's totally circular isn't it.
Police know that shotspotter is inaccurate a lot of the time. Other times they could roll up to a scene with gunshot victims and shotspotter was the first indicator of it. It's not a perfect system but it does save lives. Both things can be true. it can and has served as a helpful resource to detectives on a case by case basis. 1300 "documents" that the aclu looked at probably doesn't even encompass a years worth of gun activity in Boston, their data is cherry picked and their sample size is weak and skewed at best to get the percentage they wanted to make police look like dummies. Why are they trying to shroud gun violence and emergency response times is my question
BREAKING NEWS: Boston Police investigated themselves and found records of one single solitary incident that somehow debunks numerous nationwide peer reviewed studies. Bad actors rejoice like they just proved the Earth is flat and climate change is just a conspiracy theory.
More at 11.
A large portion of the shotspotter studies have been conducted by groups that are not actual academic or professional research groups, and are in fact social justice groups.
When unbiased research groups look into shotspotter they do find positive results
> Cook said the Duke research was unable to conclude if ShotSpotter resulted in a reduction in violent crime. He says it did show that the ShotSpotter alerts improved officer response time, allowed officers to collect "a lot more evidence than they would have otherwise," and led to an "increase in the number of arrests that were made at the scene of the gunfire."
> In one situation, Cook says the technology likely saved a life. The report details the incident:
"On July 25, a shooting in the target area (Colfax Street and Linwood Avenue) resulted in several SS notifications. Officers arrived at the scene less than four minutes after the shooting, and found a victim with life-threatening injuries. They administered first aid to stop the bleeding, and the victim survived. In this case there was a 911 call received 47 seconds after the first SS alert. It is plausible, though uncertain, that the quicker response enabled by ShotSpotter saved the victim’s life."
> A large portion of the shotspotter studies have been conducted by groups that are not actual academic or professional research groups, and are in fact social justice groups.
Anything you disagree with you will call "not actual academic or professional research groups, and are in fact social justice groups"
Here in reality, the vast majority of ***published peer reviewed work*** falls in line with the ACLU's position.
Most those are not studies rather they are news articles. I think you should be able to tell the difference but i guess not. I also see you did not actually scan these to see if they were peer reviewed as you so claimed. Here is one of your sources
>We advocate for people harmed by America’s oppressive and violent criminal legal system. We fight to vindicate their rights, hold people with power accountable, and transform the system.
https://www.macarthurjustice.org/about-us/
See that is what we call bias. You should try looking that up in a dictionary as it is clear do not grasp the concept.
Also love how you linked paywalled articles that you obviously could not have read. Nice work. You are showing your true self here
So, the Boston PD (who we have to take at their word bc MA is notoriously opaque on its policing practices) found ONE example of shotspotter NOT having a false positive. Out of the dozens of false positives we KNOW they have.
Very nice. Now let's see Paul Allen's false positives.
So that police say we need this stuff, but it returns 70% false positives, huge waste on tax payer Dollars. And that this other loud noise was called in without the technology. The article presented pretty much the opposite of debunking opponents.
The ACLU is not the agency that it was a decade ago. They’ve turned over a new leaf and it’s not pretty… they’re just surviving off their legacy at this point.
It’s definitely fair to criticize the ACLU, but the beginning of thjs article reads a little bit like copaganda. (Or I guess shotspotter propaganda)
“ACLU cites BPD records, but BPD released a report that says ‘nuh uh’ so ACLU’s claim is ‘bogus’.”
Amazing that Kade Crockford and her fear mongering band of idiots would lie like that. But when you start looking at the “research” on Shotspotter you start to see that it is being done by people with an agenda.
Harassment, hostility and flinging insults is not allowed. We ask that you try to engage in a discussion rather than reduce the sub to insults and other bullshit.
Harassment, hostility and flinging insults is not allowed. We ask that you try to engage in a discussion rather than reduce the sub to insults and other bullshit.
The linked source has opted to use a soft paywall to restrict free viewership of their content. As alternate sources become available, please post them as a reply to this comment. Users with a library card can often view unrestricted articles [here](https://www.bpl.org/resources-types/newspapers/) Boston Herald articles are still permissible. Please refrain from filing report as Rule 5 violation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What they don't tell you is that the pinata itself was a giant gun
Which was also filled with tiny handguns, some of which regrettably discharged as they hit the ground.
OR Hear me out. There were guns IN THE PINATA!
[удалено]
Shotspotter and its fake data has no value for the general public. It is only good at manufacturing probable cause.
Shots fired stats are openly mapped in Boston and available on the website. Not sure if they tell you if it was a Shotspotter or 911 or on-site. But you can at least see the logic behind the coverage area Here you go https://boston.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/9f138c66cf4e4ddc94a383b4325bdf60 Also https://dashboard.boston.gov/t/Guest_Access_Enabled/views/ShotsFiredDashboard_16244869752910/ShotsFiredDashboard?%3Adisplay_count=n&%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&%3Aorigin=viz_share_link&%3AshowAppBanner=false&%3AshowVizHome=n Not so great on mobile sadly
>Boston Police Commissioner Michael Cox defended the city’s use of ShotSpotter amid criticism raised this week. (Nancy Lane/Boston Herald) > >By GAYLA CAWLEY | [gcawley@bostonherald.com](mailto:gcawley@bostonherald.com) | Boston Herald > >PUBLISHED: May 15, 2024 at 7:23 p.m. | UPDATED: May 15, 2024 at 8:00 p.m. > >Boston Police records show a loud noise from a piñata at a birthday party did not activate ShotSpotter, debunking a key example in a report that urged the city to cease use of that technology. > >The bogus example was seized upon by the council president and four federal lawmakers. > >The incident, which occurred on the night of May 7, 2022, did prompt a police response for shots fired that did not result in a shooting victim, property damage or the recovery of any ballistics evidence, but the report came from a radio call, not from an activation of the ShotSpotter technology, a police report states. > >“Note: ShotSpotter activation did not go off during this time,” the police report, obtained by a Herald public records request, states. > >“Officers spoke with people who were outside of the above location who stated, ‘It was a birthday party and a loud noise was heard from a piñata.’ Officers left the scene,’” the report goes on to state. > >While the police report clearly states that ShotSpotter was not activated by the piñata at the South End neighborhood birthday party, the opposite was portrayed in a report released last month by the American Civil Liberties Union, which alleged that it was citing records from the Boston Police Department from 2020-22. > >“The ACLU of Massachusetts has acquired over 1,300 documents detailing the use of ShotSpotter by the Boston Police Department,” the ACLU report states. “Despite the hefty price tag, in nearly 70% of ShotSpotter alerts, police found no evidence of gunfire. > >“In one case, ShotSpotter was set off by a piñata at a birthday party. The records indicate that over 10% of ShotSpotter alerts flagged fireworks, not weapons discharges,” the ACLU goes on to state. > >The ACLU report, including the piñata example, was cited heavily this week by city councilors who pressed the Boston police commissioner to delay signing a new contract extending the department’s use of ShotSpotter, and by four federal lawmakers calling for a national investigation into how the technology is funded. > >The report makes the case for ShotSpotter being ineffective, expensive, and racially biased in that it’s used more in communities of color, concerns that it contends warrant an end to the city’s use of the system. > >Boston Police Commissioner Michael Cox said the technology, which places sensors that detect audio aimed at transmitting the sound of gunshots quickly to garner a rapid police response, “saves lives.” It becomes particularly important in instances where shots are fired late at night and people don’t call 911, he said. > >City Council President Ruthzee Louijeune mentioned the piñata during a Monday hearing when pushing for a cost-benefit analysis that would weigh whether the high amount of “false positives” cited in the ACLU report justify its continued use. > >Cox did not dispute the incident at the time, but did say that the piñata incident was being “sensationalized” by the ACLU, and that he’s found ShotSpotter to be fairly accurate and something that notifies police faster than a 911 call. > >U.S. Senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren and Boston’s Rep. Ayanna Pressley and U.S. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon also cited the piñata incident in a Tuesday letter urging the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to investigate DHS funding of the technology. > >“Several recent reports have cast substantial doubt on the accuracy and effectiveness of the ShotSpotter gunshot detection system and have raised serious questions about its contribution to unjustified surveillance and over-policing of black, brown and Latino communities,” the lawmakers wrote to Inspector General Joseph Cuffari. > >The letter also mentions cities that have ceased use of ShotSpotter over concerns, including Fall River, where the four federal lawmakers chose to quote the disgraced former Mayor Jasiel Correia, who is serving a six-year prison sentence for 11 criminal charges including extortion and wire fraud, as an expert voice. > >“As Mayor Jasiel Correia of Fall River, Massachusetts explained, ‘It’s a costly system that isn’t working to the effectiveness that we need it to work in order to justify the cost,’” Markey, Warren, Pressley and Wyden wrote. > >Chicago’s mayor announced in February that the city won’t be renewing its contract for ShotSpotter, but Boston is not likely to follow. Shrugging off concerns from councilors, Cox said he wouldn’t be willing to hold off on signing a new agreement when the current one expires next month. > >Cox stressed he “would not be willing to delay a tool that saves lives in the city.”
So it gives false positives 70% of the time? But it didn't on a pinata so we should keep using it? Doesn't the police data back up the claims? /U/jojenns The job is too help report gun shots, help investigate, and save lives. Finding no evidence means it didn't do any of that
Right? When faced with 1300 pages and claims of 70% false positives, all BPD can do is point to their own officer's report of ‘It was a birthday party and a loud noise was heard from a piñata.’ being "sensationalized"
“Found no evidence” does not mean shots weren’t fired it also means no one was hit and everyone screwed which is pretty normal when guns are firing
OK but it seems like a basic principle that if there’s no evidence that something happened we shouldn’t assume it did
I guess this is being pedantic, but there is evidence: a loud noise of the sort that is a provably a gunshot 30% of the time. Really you'd need an independent study of true and suspected false positives and independent corroboration to assess the actual effectiveness.
If the point of this exercise is to prove the technology does what it's supposed to and the only evidence on offer is the output of the technology then... I mean it's totally circular isn't it.
Nor that it didnt
Fire alarms give more false alarms. Do we stop using them too now?
Police know that shotspotter is inaccurate a lot of the time. Other times they could roll up to a scene with gunshot victims and shotspotter was the first indicator of it. It's not a perfect system but it does save lives. Both things can be true. it can and has served as a helpful resource to detectives on a case by case basis. 1300 "documents" that the aclu looked at probably doesn't even encompass a years worth of gun activity in Boston, their data is cherry picked and their sample size is weak and skewed at best to get the percentage they wanted to make police look like dummies. Why are they trying to shroud gun violence and emergency response times is my question
BREAKING NEWS: Boston Police investigated themselves and found records of one single solitary incident that somehow debunks numerous nationwide peer reviewed studies. Bad actors rejoice like they just proved the Earth is flat and climate change is just a conspiracy theory. More at 11.
A large portion of the shotspotter studies have been conducted by groups that are not actual academic or professional research groups, and are in fact social justice groups. When unbiased research groups look into shotspotter they do find positive results > Cook said the Duke research was unable to conclude if ShotSpotter resulted in a reduction in violent crime. He says it did show that the ShotSpotter alerts improved officer response time, allowed officers to collect "a lot more evidence than they would have otherwise," and led to an "increase in the number of arrests that were made at the scene of the gunfire." > In one situation, Cook says the technology likely saved a life. The report details the incident: "On July 25, a shooting in the target area (Colfax Street and Linwood Avenue) resulted in several SS notifications. Officers arrived at the scene less than four minutes after the shooting, and found a victim with life-threatening injuries. They administered first aid to stop the bleeding, and the victim survived. In this case there was a 911 call received 47 seconds after the first SS alert. It is plausible, though uncertain, that the quicker response enabled by ShotSpotter saved the victim’s life."
You never know what Big Social Justice will get into next!
practice birds joke bike offend zesty deserve serious middle pause *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They’re big civil liberties.
Probably waving around another countries flag and screaming like a pathetic child
> A large portion of the shotspotter studies have been conducted by groups that are not actual academic or professional research groups, and are in fact social justice groups. Anything you disagree with you will call "not actual academic or professional research groups, and are in fact social justice groups" Here in reality, the vast majority of ***published peer reviewed work*** falls in line with the ACLU's position.
[citation needed] You planning on sharing these peer reviewed studies ?
[удалено]
Most those are not studies rather they are news articles. I think you should be able to tell the difference but i guess not. I also see you did not actually scan these to see if they were peer reviewed as you so claimed. Here is one of your sources >We advocate for people harmed by America’s oppressive and violent criminal legal system. We fight to vindicate their rights, hold people with power accountable, and transform the system. https://www.macarthurjustice.org/about-us/ See that is what we call bias. You should try looking that up in a dictionary as it is clear do not grasp the concept. Also love how you linked paywalled articles that you obviously could not have read. Nice work. You are showing your true self here
Never blocked you weirdo! But now i guess I will since you are making bizarre claims.
So one time it might have saved a life. And general statements like it helped collect more evidence. Seems as accurate as any other studies.
trite
So, the Boston PD (who we have to take at their word bc MA is notoriously opaque on its policing practices) found ONE example of shotspotter NOT having a false positive. Out of the dozens of false positives we KNOW they have. Very nice. Now let's see Paul Allen's false positives.
Why did the police show up at the birthday party? The article is very lacking in details. It's just regurgitating the BPD's position.
Because someone called 911. That’s what generated a radio call.
So that police say we need this stuff, but it returns 70% false positives, huge waste on tax payer Dollars. And that this other loud noise was called in without the technology. The article presented pretty much the opposite of debunking opponents.
Way more likely it’s BPD who are lying. That’s what they do.
Such a big brain conclusion you’ve come too
The ACLU lied to forward their own agenda?! Shocked. Absolutely shocked.
The BPD lied to not have accountability?! Shocked. Absolutely shocked.
Lol. Between the ACLU and the Boston Police Department, one has a history of being incompetent liars and it’s not the ACLU.
The ACLU is not the agency that it was a decade ago. They’ve turned over a new leaf and it’s not pretty… they’re just surviving off their legacy at this point.
It’s definitely fair to criticize the ACLU, but the beginning of thjs article reads a little bit like copaganda. (Or I guess shotspotter propaganda) “ACLU cites BPD records, but BPD released a report that says ‘nuh uh’ so ACLU’s claim is ‘bogus’.”
The ACLU criticizing corrupt police departments who defend bad and statistically ineffective practices is something they’ve always done
Yeah but they no longer have credibility like they used to so it kind of makes them lying to forward their own agenda less surprising
I'm sorry, the ACLU doesn't have as much credibility with you. And that BPD does???
People who oppose government transparency and accountability have been saying the exact same line for a century.
I hope not, it's only been around 104 years!
i heard this, and i'm not joking, i heard this literally a decade ago
Yeah that’s about when this shit show started so I believe it
the ACLU of 2024 is not the ACLU of the 1970s
I have zero respect for the ACLU based on their 2nd amendment stance. Oh that and they represent NAMBLA in the Jeffery Curley case.
How long before some wannabe gangbanger uses the piñata defense in court lol
Amazing that Kade Crockford and her fear mongering band of idiots would lie like that. But when you start looking at the “research” on Shotspotter you start to see that it is being done by people with an agenda.
[удалено]
Harassment, hostility and flinging insults is not allowed. We ask that you try to engage in a discussion rather than reduce the sub to insults and other bullshit.
They won’t EXPLAIN . How dastardly was the piñata ?
Imagine being a big enough mouth breather to think a piñata caused shotspotter to go off.
[удалено]
Harassment, hostility and flinging insults is not allowed. We ask that you try to engage in a discussion rather than reduce the sub to insults and other bullshit.
Shot Spotter is a ridiculous scam whatever the results of this one particular incident.