From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

The fatal shooting of Xavier Bautista reignited the debate over
ShotSpotter. We asked readers whether Cambridge should reinstate the
technology u here's why most said yes.

Cambridge has been grappling with renewed scrutiny of its decision to
drop ShotSpotter after the July 4 killing of city worker Xavier
Bautista.

Authorities say Bautista, 32, was shot during an early-morning overtime
shift and that his body wasnAt found for more than an hour. Prosecutors
have charged one man, Rayquon R. Brown, 29, of Canton, in connection
with the killing and said the attack appears to have been random,
carried out by a group who allegedly set out looking for someone to
shoot. Brown was charged on Monday and pleaded not guilty to murder,
illegal gun possession, and being an armed career criminal. He was
ordered held without bail.

Police unions have argued that the absence of the gunshot-detection
system, which the City Council voted to discontinue in May, delayed the discovery of Bautista and the response to the scene.

oIt is plausible that an active ShotSpotter system could have resulted
in first responders arriving on-scene to render aid to the victim more
quickly, particularly in this case when the shooting was not reported
via 9-1-1,o Cambridge Police Department spokesperson Sgt. Robert Reardon
told CambridgeDay.

The case has reignited a debate that split the council earlier this
year, and Boston.com wanted to know where readers stood. We asked if
Cambridge City Council should bring back the use of the technology. Of
117 readers who weighed in, the response was overwhelmingly in favor
(91%) of bringing back ShotSpotter. Nine percent said no, and just one
reader was unsure.

Many who favor bringing the technology back pointed directly to
BautistaAs death as proof of whatAs lost without it, arguing that faster detection could have meant a faster response.

As one reader, Alex of Roxbury, put it, oIt is not perfect, but this
technology is useful in quickly identifying very serious and time
sensitive incidents.o

Another reader, A.A. of Cambridge, was more blunt: oCommon sense to use
such technology to safeguard the residents. Foolish not to use it.o

A smaller group of readers pushed back, questioning whether the system
actually improves outcomes and whether its cost u $50,000 per year,
covered by a federal grant, according to GBH u is justified, given that
it may flag gunfire that doesnAt correspond to any reported crime.

Below, readers share their thoughts on reinstroducing ShotSpotter in
Cambridge.

Responses have been lightly edited for grammar and clarity.

Cambridge City Council voted to end the use of ShotSpotter in May.
Should the city bring it back? Yes, Cambridge should bring ShotSpotter
back oA gunshot is a gunshot, no matter which neighborhood it happens
in, and every resident deserves a rapid response. Concerns about police
bias are serious, but they should lead to reform u not to throw away a
system that can quickly alert to the discharge of a weapon. Our
communityAs response to gun violence is only as strong as our ability to
know a threat exists in the first place.o u Colin F., Cambridge

oIt is beyond ridiculous to remove a type of technology that alerts law enforcement to shots fired in our neighborhoods. There is no logical
reason to take that away from us, and I say that as someone who lives in
a neighborhood where ShotSpotter is used. Cambridge needs to reconsider
this misguided policy.o u CeeCee, Boston

oI voted ayesA to bring ShotSpotter back because the recent tragedy
showed what can happen when a gunshot goes undetected for nearly an
hour. Even if no single technology guarantees prevention, acoustic
detection gives first responders a chance to reach victims faster,
especially when no one calls 911. And for what itAs worth, if it saves
even one life through quicker notification u the same standard often
used when debating gun laws u then restoring it strengthens public
safety and closes a gap we now know exists.o u A.J.M., Goffstown, New
Hampshire

oItAs possible that XavierAs life could have been saved or comforted in
the last moments of his life if the ShotSpotter technology hadnAt been
turned off. This technology would have given the police the right tools
to support their investigation by allowing them to reach the crime scene
within minutes. Cambridge City Council, youAre sworn to uphold the law
and protect citizens by ensuring a safe, secure quality of life. We are
all watching. We want a full reversal! And while youAre at it, put back
the Flock Cameras. Do what is right! Protect our police and citizens;
give them the proper tools so this doesnAt happen again. Xavier deserved better. His family deserves better. Cambridge deserves better.o u Carrie
P., Cambridge

oI abhor government and corporate tracking such as license plate
readers, flock safety cameras, even Apple family sharing (or is it
tracking) but ShotSpotter is different. The tech simply helps to
identify where a gunshot has occurred; itAs not surveillance of a person
or specific spot but an acoustic device that identifies gunshots which
are most often illegal in city settings. Never underestimate the
Cambridge City CouncilAs penchant for making terrible decisions.o u Dan,
Boston

No, Cambridge should not bring ShotSpotter back
oShot Spotter isnAt going to stop anyone from pulling the trigger. LetAs
see the metrics on how much faster law enforcement responds to gunfire
with ShotSpotter versus witness phone calls, and then show me the
metrics of how many more suspects are apprehended because of
ShotSpotter; then show me the metrics of the deterrent effect of the use
of Shot Spotter. I promise you none will pass the sniff test.o u Robert, Somerville

oHow many times did ShotSpotter detect a gunshot and officers were
deployed, but there was no gunshot and no crime, and those resources
were wasted? The city shouldnAt waste money on ineffective and expensive programs.o u Sarah, Brighton

https://www.boston.com/community/readers-say/readers-want-shotspotter-bac k-in-cambridge/

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2