The reframing is that it have cops reason to go in armed and expecting an active shooter when 93% of the time there was no reason to expect that, and 4 it of 5 times SS reports led to civilians being stopped for no justification.
That said, I don't think anyone is opposed to technology that can locate gunshots and deliver law enforcement to the right places. The gripe is that this company in particular has a history of being opaque and trying to cover up their failings, leading to questions about the effectiveness of their underlying technology and data integrity. The public can't tell whether this is a legitimate social good based on an effective tool or if the company is just ripping off tax payers and sometimes outright working with crooked cops to fabricate probable cause.
Not every cop is crooked, and not every acoustic triangulation technology is fake. But this company isn't being transparent or well intentioned enough for the public, or even a limited group of outside experts, to make that determination. And they have a history of being willing to corrupt their data, altering evidence to facilitate false records from crooked cops.
The right tools in the wrong hands can still be a problem. We don't know if this is the right tool, but the company has shown itself to be the wrong hands.
Eg https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022/7/27/23280415/chicag...
Yes, I do think that.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/1101496374/chicago-police-13-...
It seems to me that to think otherwise is a "the omelet requires breaking eggs" argument.
No, I wouldn't, because your facts are wrong. Yes, London police are generally unarmed, but they still get called to respond to situations where there is a likely armed suspect, and in those cases, they send in special units that are armed.
The question here -- that you avoided -- is, what is the appropriate probability before sending in such an officer, and is it higher than the 7% in the situation you cited? You were asking others to be outraged that there was "only" a 7% chance of an actual armed shooter. In an attempt to move the discussion forward, I asked what the appropriate value is, so as to appropriately judge whether such intervention was unwarranted.
To which your entire response was to shoehorn in an irrelevant factoid about London and falsely imply I'm not aware of it. (And, of course, work in a Fermi reference, because, why not?)
If I may make a suggestion: next time someone asks a substantive question, and you don't have a substantive answer, just don't reply. That's a much better approach for the forum than what you just did.
In that context, ShotSpotter's mechanism bordering on ascientific prognostication should be considered dangerous to the community because it is increasing the chances of fatal encounters for no benefit. It's basically SWATting with a fancy corporate branding.
What part of my comment is that (or anything else you've said) responding to? I asked a simple question: what is the appropriate "probability of a shooter" that justifies going in with a protocol that expects one? Now you're just guessing things that have little to do with what I said.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259925
But yes, "tighten up" those Fermi estimates for a question no one asked and which has no bearing on the discussion.