Dallas police to citizens: Gravity applies to bullets, too

Scott Doyle says:

I bet a lot were in Plano, b/c they apparently win at <a href="http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2007/nov/12/plano-named-least-murderous-city-america-emforbese/">hiding the bodies</a>.

Michael Davis says:

This is one of the reasons we're working to fund a gunshot-detection system. I'm sick of these morons.

Pavel Lishin says:

Who's "we"?

I remember reading about that being implemented in another city, it was a pretty interesting concept.

Michael Davis says:

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway and I have made it a priority. It was part of his campaign agenda. I also wrote about it in the article I did for the D Magazine Dec '07 issue.

We need about 2.5 mil to get it started.

Rick Yost says:

Sometimes this society works backwards. $2.5mil to get 'started' with yet another example of human super-high-definition-intelligence. A system to detect what, for some unfortunates, may be the last things they experience. They could call it a $2.5mil corpse detector?

I thought addressing the symptom was deemed inefficient.

Michael Davis says:

Clay has jokes.

Yes it will cost $2.5 mill to do a large portion of our council district. That should cover about a 11-12 square mile radius.

To get Dallas off of the top crime list, we have to ramp up our efforts. This is an example of using best practices from other cities to fight violent crime.

It has been shown in multiple cities to catch criminals within hours of its installation (Boston, Minneapolis, DC). In East Orange, NJ (one of the most violent cities in NJ), it reduced gun crime by 85% after its installation.

Scott Doyle says:

What exactly does the system do, Mike D.? I'm with Yost and Clay on this one...seems kinda ridiculous. Does the system alert the nearest police vehicle, or is it more like a central station alarm?

I can see how it would help in areas listed, b/c gunshots are so common that nobody reports them...and it's a general policy to avoid communicating with the police altogether. Details, plars.

Scott Doyle says:

I can't explain why, but when Mike D. said "Clay has jokes." I laughed really hard irl. Tina's bump made me see it again, and it's still funny. Kudos to you, Mike D.

Still interested in how this thing is supposed to work, hope Mike sees this. And I'm really bored at work, so hopefully it's sooner than later. =)

Michael Davis says:

Tina,

Have you seen that we are quite short on the amount of police officers that we have...constantly running from call to call? We don't have enough officers to have them sit and wait for shots to be fired. In most areas of the City, that's the reality.

Scott,

The system does whatever you want. It can go straight to dispatch or to the officer in the area. Here's one of the companies that does it. The site also has a lot of news clips from cities that have the technology.

http://www.spotshotter.com/index.html

Scott Doyle says:

But do they triangulate, Clay?!

Peter Stawicki says:

Gunshot detection systems in cities like Chicago and Detroit have been paired with city wide CCTV systems and have allowed a quick pinpoint of where the shots were fired from and in some cases have actually found a person or persons standing on the street with firearm in hand. The use of the CCTV systems allows the centralized viewing area to dispatch Police Cars, Transmit recorded and still images, and in the end apprehend people either in the act or soon after.

Obviously as mentioned above, this is a costly system and without more CCTV coverage in this city (We have under 20 PTZ Cameras downtown) to work hand in hand without that technology the officers would likely be following up blind leads.

A better use for the funding required would be more officers hired and out patrolling the streets. Second best use would be to increase the eyes on the street without the officers by installing more CCTV Camera in the Fair Park and Uptown areas where the most common occurances of violence happen in this city.

Scott Doyle says:

I'd just like to point out that ShotSpotter FAQ (the product Mike D. linked to) <a href="http://www.spotshotter.com/products/faq.html#question10">actually addresses</a> the "should hire more police with those monies" points-of-view:

• There is absolutely no substitute for good police work. ShotSpotter has never marketed its product as a replacement for the hard work of law enforcement professionals, and they never will. ShotSpotter systems are generally funded through separate funding streams than the operational budgets which pay police salaries, and we do not attempt to compete for operational funds when officers’ jobs are at stake.

• What ShotSpotter can do is help police response to gunfire become more efficient. By eliminating false alarm calls, police respond to fewer events which waste their time, and save their energies for real emergencies. Moreover, because ShotSpotter provides immediate notification of events, police are more readily able to respond quickly enough to save lives and take criminals off the street, thereby reducing the criminal population of would-be shooters, as well as police workload.

pstawicki, apparently this system partially covers your concern (what exact technology is used apparently isn't allowed to be disseminated publicly, b/c of those pesky criminals doing their homework):

• ShotSpotter products range from systems for public safety agencies and 911 dispatch centers (which instantly identify, locate <b>and give a visual of the location of a gunshot event</b> in an urban area) to fully mobile, inter-networked wireless systems for the military that are capable of detecting and locating many types of weapon events in various challenging environments.