Sunday morning: Once again I must express my reservation about what I consider half backed expenditure plans to fight crime in Plainfield.
New technology may be fine but any single one that has been proposed is no more than an extension of Orwellian Big Brother Society without the required weekly 60/60/24/7 (seconds, minutes, hours. days), full time monitoring and immediate reaction . Otherwise these gadgets are just an other form of reactive equipment.
Even if we knew the timing of each shooting, does anyone besides Public Safety Director/Police Director Director Hellwig believe that "Shotspotter" would have prevented any of the four shootings Saturday night? Perhaps the reaction time might have been slightly better than a response to the 911 calls that must have come in.
Instead of Administration (and Council) being seduced by a controlled demonstration, they should review and seek more information from other municipalities that have used the various techniques.
One million dollars ($1,000,000.00) to be spent on gun shot detection , would be better invested in 2 or 3 "bodies" added to the on the ground presence. Even better would be immediate installation of long range plans to cut off the pool of new gang members by offering an attractive alternative in increased organized youth activities.
Perhaps this will be one of two subjects for Monday's blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How about 1,000,000 dollar city wide after-school / character education program to prevent negativity and violence in the first place?
ReplyDeleteDitto, a cusory google search will show that the cites of Oakland, Chicago and York have issues with the effectiveness of Shotspotter. Also, the cost per sq mile quoted to Plainfield seems to be higher than what these cites paid. A less expensive alternative might be to use video cameras to put more eyes on the street, Through the use of WI-FI citizens could access those images in real time at anytime of the day and report anything unusual to the police. While this solution is somewhat Orwellian, it might be worth the trade off, if it substantially reduces the crime rate.
ReplyDeleteThis administration has wasted so much of our money. I wonder if Sharon or Jerry will get a cut of the million dollars. If cameras or any other system is not monitored, what good is it? This is as bad as the Louisiana governor spending millions to build sand bars to stop oil from reaching shore, just to have them wash away a week later. Let's think this trough, though I know our mayor isn't well known for thinking at all.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I heard that Hitler got neighbors to turn in neighbors too, good idea Nat! Besides that would be extra eyes on the police, they don't want that!
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous, 4:05 I am assuming sarcasm on your part. Thus my reply.
ReplyDeleteThose people who know me, know that Hitler would have had me first in line for the ovens for any number reasons which I will not numerate here.
The idea of putting more eyes on the street does not come from Hitler but from an observation made by Jane Jacobs in her book, 'The Death and Life of Great American Cites.' In it she points out how urban neighborhoods are and able to police themselves. What I'm suggesting is a modern cost effective update to her observation. Now, what are your ideas for reducing the crime rate?
As to what Hitler was up to, you might want to educate yourself by reading the following: 'The Coming of the Third Reich,' by Richard J. Evans; 'Explaining Hitler,' by Ron Rosenbaum; 'The Origins of Totalitarianism.' by Hannah Arent; 'Mussoline,' by James Ridley. They make a good start and should help you make a more cogent retort in your next reply.
Sorry Old Doc but the Hitler reference ticked me off. This should end soon as I'm setting up my own blog, 'Dumbed Down America.' It should be up and running by Sunday.
ReplyDeleteSee me at my soapbox.
6:05 PM, Can't wait.
ReplyDeleteSorry olddoc . . . this is Anonymous 4:05. Yes Nat, that was very intuative on your part, it was sarcasm . . . the Hitler reference. And as with all sarcasm it was based on some fact. In the urban gang environment, snitches are looked down upon. They are also threatened with and on the recieving end of violence at times. Also in many cases it would not be difficult for the criminal element to find out "Who Ratted on Them", especially in this age of computers. Also the illegal Hispanics have trust issues with the police . . . another good source of street info that might not be productive! And as for the police not wanting to be seen, the police by nature are secretive and want to be able to control when they are seen and in what light! Sorry you got your panties in a bunch Nat. I can't wait for anon 6:05's blog!
ReplyDelete