>>Attorneys from the Cook County Public Defender Office, contending the police pulled the man over solely based on a ShotSpotter alert, subpoenaed the company as a third party to find out whether that was the case.
but that seems unlikely -- it would be really expensive and low-yield to pull over everyone in the vicinity of a gunshot. It would be about the same as with regular human ears hearing a bang: go to the source, then pull over cars with evidence further differentiating them as a possible locus of crime.
So probably shotspotter got the cop to that location, where he saw other, more crime-specific evidence. But without more info about this case I couldn't say for sure.
Expensive and low-yield for whom? For the officer who's been directed their by the robot, they're incentivized to do so; it makes them look like they're doing their jobs instead of doing nothing. What's built into the system to penalize them for inconveniencing / endangering a bunch of people with nothing to show for it?
And if you’re economizing on time, I can assure that a better use of it would be to answer the challenge you kept dodging (or “misinterpreting” as a opportunity to show off irrelevant knowledge):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259971
At this point I’m just going to assume you have no idea if 7% is a good threshold or not, but still see so problem with shouting it because it sounds good.
[1] In case you forgot, the only reason you were outraged was because the search did catch a criminal that it shouldn’t have. So obviously someone cares about catching a criminal!
It's expensive for the community, to be sure, but the cop's not incentivized immediately to care about that.
It wasn't in that comment, it was in the premise of all your previous posts that it is outrag^W^W^W^W^W suboptimal for someone to be pulled over and eventually arrested for DUI when the original instigating cause was a false positive for gunfire.
IOW, the entire reason you're talking about this case, is because they did not pull over everyone in the vicinity but prioritized those that were more likely to be committing crime, based on other signals. That's how we got to this case to begin with! And yet, I'm having to remind you that you're arguing with yourself.
Do you consider it too much to ask that you remember the context of what you're talking about? And for others not have to remind you?
Also, thanks for the confirmation that you don't have a substantive answer to the substantive question, "what probability threshold is appropriate for police to enter in preparation for an active shooter" -- I had always assumed your comment was bad-faith to begin with. Especially when you deny that comments such as these are expressing something similar to outrage: