Four Fact-Based Arguments Refuting Bogus and Dishonest Claims About ShotSpotter

By Ralph Clark, President and CEO at SoundThinking

Ralph Clark

ShotSpotter, the leading gunshot detection system, is effective, unbiased and welcomed by people in the communities we serve. It helps police and first responders save lives and mitigate the effects of gun violence.

Despite these factual benefits, ShotSpotter is occasionally the subject of false, misleading and specious statements by so-called critics, most recently by Brooklyn Defender Services. We embrace feedback and respect differences of opinion. Unfortunately, these mischaracterizations and claims have been unfairly twisted by some media reports to impersonate objective facts and mislead the public about how ShotSpotter helps communities improve public safety.

Here are four bogus and dishonest claims advanced by opponents like Brooklyn Defenders regarding ShotSpotter’s efficacy and value to NYPD – and the real story for each.

1. The Flawed Assumption That Absence of Physical Evidence Equals No Gunfire

Certain critics who cast doubt on ShotSpotter’s effectiveness base their argument on the claim that the absence of physical evidence of gunfire (e.g., a shell casing) at a ShotSpotter alert location indicates no gunfire occurred. The critics then claim that the alert was erroneous and, by extension, that the technology is inaccurate. This reasoning is fundamentally flawed and reflects a misunderstanding of how criminals operate, how first responders investigate, and the role that digital evidence plays in helping mitigate gun violence.

• Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: The failure to recover shell casings, weapons, or witness testimony in response to a ShotSpotter alert does not definitively prove that gunfire did not occur. Many gunfire incidents, particularly in urban environments, may not leave recoverable evidence that first responders can locate and recover. For example, shooters may remove shell casings, police may arrive after a scene has cleared, the gunfire may occur in an area where physical evidence is obscured, or the shooter may have used a revolver, which, unlike a semi-automatic weapon, does not eject casings. The assumption that the lack of tangible proof invalidates an auditory detection ignores the reality of the investigative process. [By the way, most 911 “shots fired” calls made to a dispatch center also do not lead to physical evidence recovery. Do we get rid of 911 systems too?]

• ShotSpotter alerts provide critical digital evidence: ShotSpotter captures and preserves audio snippets of potential gunfire, effectively making NYPD an auditory witness to these incidents. These recordings have been determined by judges to be credible pieces of evidence and have been admitted in hundreds of court cases nationwide, on behalf of both prosecution and defense. If the technology’s outputs are robust enough to meet the evidentiary standards of judicial proceedings, they are unquestionably sufficient to justify investigative responses. To dismiss them as unreliable evidence ignores their repeatedly recognized value in the legal system.
• Digital evidence enhances situational awareness: The auditory recordings provide more than just an alert; they offer law enforcement precise information about the timing, location, and nature of potential gunfire, all of which can be valuable evidence that corroborates, or is corroborated by, other evidence developed during the subsequent investigation. This capability also allows officers to respond more accurately and quickly, potentially preventing further violence and assisting victims. Ignoring these benefits equates to discounting a critical tool for enhancing public safety.

Click the image to hear the recording of this corresponding gunfire incident.

ShotSpotter should be evaluated in light of the comprehensive digital evidence it generates, which offers NYPD a valuable investigative lead even in the absence of immediately visible physical evidence.

2. Mischaracterizing ShotSpotter’s Role in Addressing Unreported Gunfire

The claim that ShotSpotter leads to “over policing” misrepresents its role in addressing community safety and ignores critical context about how gunfire is reported—or not reported—in different neighborhoods.

Did you know that..

• 80% of gunfire goes unreported: Studies and our experience across more than 180 jurisdictions consistently show that the vast majority (80% or more) of gunfire incidents are not reported via 911 calls. Residents in communities affected by frequent gun violence may not call due to fear of retaliation, lack of trust in law enforcement, or desensitization to these events. In such cases, ShotSpotter fills a critical gap by detecting gunfire incidents that would otherwise go unnoticed and unaddressed. Dismissing these alerts as unnecessary “over-policing” undermines the legitimate need for law enforcement presence in response to criminal activity.
• Demand for police response is universal: Suggesting that NYPD responses to ShotSpotter alerts amount to over policing implies that residents in high crime areas do not want or deserve the same level of emergency response as residents in more affluent neighborhoods. This assumption is inherently biased and fails to recognize the clear demand for law enforcement intervention in communities grappling with gun violence. Numerous surveys and community feedback demonstrate that residents in areas disproportionately impacted by gun violence want police who are already on patrol to respond and protect their neighborhoods, just as affluent communities expect a robust response to emergencies.
• ShotSpotter doesn’t discriminate: The argument that ShotSpotter deployments exacerbate racial disparities is prima facie flawed and risks reinforcing stereotypes. By suggesting that predominantly Black or low-income neighborhoods should be policed less in response to gunfire, critics ignore the explicit needs and demands of these communities. Residents in all neighborhoods have the right to safety, and addressing gun violence equitably requires tools like ShotSpotter to ensure incidents do not go ignored simply because they occur in underserved areas.
• Communities want ShotSpotter: Critics overlook clear evidence from sentiment surveys that show residents in communities affected by gun violence overwhelmingly want more effective policing and faster responses to incidents of gunfire. For example, a recent survey by Change Research found that ‘Using ShotSpotter is popular among Chicago voters (70% support / 21% oppose / 9% not sure), with 48% strongly supportive.” ShotSpotter enables law enforcement to meet these expectations by ensuring that gunfire incidents are not overlooked due to underreporting. Failing to address gunfire with the same urgency afforded to other emergencies amounts to neglect, which itself could be viewed as discriminatory.

There is indeed a civil rights component here, but it is the opposite from the false rants of ShotSpotter’s critics. We view the ability to live peacefully, free from the consequences of gun violence, as a right that all people deserve. ShotSpotter ensures equal access to safety and justice by detecting unreported gunfire and enabling law enforcement to respond proactively. The suggestion that responding to alerts equates to “over policing” ignores the rights and desires of residents in these communities.

3. Superficial “Analysis” Ignores the True Value and Impact of ShotSpotter

Critics like Brooklyn Defenders claim to have conducted a “deep analysis” of ShotSpotter’s performance, yet their findings merely restate publicly available NYPD statistics without addressing the deeper impact that ShotSpotter is proven to have on saving lives and furthering criminal investigations. This superficial approach misses the broader implications of what physically confirmed incidents of gunfire mean for communities, particularly those disproportionately affected by gun violence.

• Tabulation is not analysis: Critics like Brooklyn Defenders often simply tabulate how many ShotSpotter alerts result in physical evidence of gunfire, arrests, or firearm recovery. This is simplistic and not really analysis—it is a surface-level summary of raw data. A true analysis would explore the broader implications of these events, such as how recovered evidence contributes to solving cases, removing firearms from the streets, or preventing further violence, and reducing levels of fear in the community.
• The value of confirmed incidents: While only a fraction of ShotSpotter alerts may result in physically-confirmed gunfire incidents, those incidents have significant value:
  • Lives saved: ShotSpotter has helped police locate gunshot wound victims faster than 911 calls, enabling quicker medical response and saving lives. What is the value of even one life saved? The critics fail to account for the human cost of delayed or absent response to gunfire. Notably, a University of Chicago Crime Lab study estimated with high probability that ShotSpotter saves at least 85 lives per year.
  • Critical evidence recovery: Recovered shell casings and other ballistic evidence from confirmed incidents are invaluable in criminal investigations, helping link shootings, build cases, and convict perpetrators. Studies have shown that ShotSpotter alerts can lead to a 3X increase in evidence collection vs. 911 calls, due to it’s much higher accuracy on where gunfire occurred.
  • On-scene arrests and gun seizures: Arrests and confiscations resulting from ShotSpotter alerts directly contribute to reducing gun violence. Each gun removed from circulation represents potential lives saved and reductions in future violence.
• The real impact on communities: The nominal “success rates” critics emphasize do not account for the cascading benefits of confirmed incidents. For example, recovering a gun might not only solve a specific case, but also prevent future shootings. ShotSpotter plays a pivotal role in breaking cycles of violence in communities often overlooked by traditional policing resources.
• Black Lives Matter—do critics remember? The communities where ShotSpotter operates are often the very ones most impacted by gun violence, predominantly Black and low-income neighborhoods. ShotSpotter helps police respond more effectively to shootings in these communities, underscoring and advancing the principle that Black lives matter. To diminish or devalue the importance of these interventions contradicts the commitment to protecting lives in these vulnerable areas.

That critics like Brooklyn Defenders fail to assess the value of confirmed incidents trivializes the lifesaving and investigative outcomes of ShotSpotter alerts. Lives saved, evidence recovered, and violence prevented-and the resulting improvement in residents’ quality of life-are outcomes that transcend statistics, reflecting the true value of this technology.

4. ShotSpotter Is a Vital Tool, Not a Cure-All, in the Fight Against Gun Violence

Brooklyn Defenders and other critics of ShotSpotter mischaracterize its purpose and unfairly hold it to the unrealistic standard of single-handedly solving gun violence. This criticism ignores its true role as a critical tool that enhances public safety, improves law enforcement response, and sends an essential signal to communities that their safety is a priority.

• ShotSpotter enables rapid and precise responses: By detecting gunfire incidents in real time, ShotSpotter allows NYPD to respond faster and with greater accuracy to potential threats. This capability is particularly critical in urban areas where gunfire often goes unreported. The technology ensures that no incident of gun violence is overlooked, signaling to communities that law enforcement is committed to their safety.
• It’s a tool, not a cure-all: Criticizing ShotSpotter for failing to “solve” gun violence is as misguided as blaming a smoke alarm for not preventing fires or chemotherapy for not eradicating cancer. Just as these tools are vital components of larger strategies to address complex problems, ShotSpotter is one tool in NYPD’s toolkit for addressing gun violence. It cannot, and should not, be expected to address root causes, but it plays an essential role in mitigating the immediate risks and consequences of gunfire.
• Mitigating downstream risks and costs: The value of ShotSpotter extends beyond detecting gunfire. By ensuring timely law enforcement intervention:
  • Lives are protected: Faster response times can save lives, prevent further harm, and provide comfort to communities that their safety is taken seriously.
  • Resources are better allocated: ShotSpotter helps police focus their resources on areas where gunfire incidents occur, reducing the likelihood of missed opportunities to address violence.
  • Communities are empowered: Knowing that gunfire will trigger an immediate police response reinforces the idea that community safety is a priority. This can build trust between residents and law enforcement.
• A signal of safety commitment: By deploying ShotSpotter, NYPD sends a clear message to neighborhoods affected by gun violence: their lives matter, and their safety is being actively prioritized. Ignoring this signal fact undermines the efforts to build trust in communities where such trust may already be fragile. For residents in these areas, the presence of ShotSpotter represents a commitment to their well-being, not a failure to solve every underlying issue.

ShotSpotter is a vital part of a broader strategy to address gun violence. It is currently deployed in all five boroughs of New York and more than 180 other jurisdictions worldwide. Dismissing it because it doesn’t solve the entire problem misunderstands its purpose and undervalues its contributions to enhancing community safety, reducing harm, and supporting NYPD’s efforts to ensure safer, more livable neighborhoods. Do you really think that it’s best that the police don’t show up at the sites of shootings? Do you think it was better when only 10-20% of gunfire was reported, and the locations were imprecise and took several minutes more to get to the police?