It is hard to understand the logic behind the opposition to ShotSpotter technology. Sunday’s Tribune article mentions a case in which ShotSpotter allowed police to go to a location where a police officer had been shot (“ShotSpotter technology a source of praise, scorn”). In the last two to three years, it has allowed police to direct lifesaving medical attention to more than 400 people. Is this not useful?
A big part of the argument against ShotSpotter appears to be that it doesn’t reduce crime. That has been stated time and time again. Logic would suggest that if a person who plans to use a gun knows that gunshots will bring the police, it should have at least some deterrent effect.
The article also states that the technology is perceived to harm people of color. It mentions a situation in which police drove to a location because of a ShotSpotter alert but arrested someone who had nothing to do with gunfire. Are police not allowed to ticket or arrest someone who has or is committing a crime because that wasn’t the reason they were called to the area? That seems quite absurd. I could easily see the police being considered negligent for not addressing an issue that occurred while driving to a possible crime scene.
A working paper by University of California at Santa Barbara doctoral candidates reports that Chicago police responses to 911 calls were delayed because police were busy responding to ShotSpotter alerts. Does their study take into account that the number of police officers is 2,000 below where it should be and the mayor doesn’t seem to believe that building up the ranks is a good idea?
What seems indisputable is that ShotSpotter directs police to a location where gunfire has occurred. Why is it relevant whether ShotSpotter can be used in court? ShotSpotter isn’t identifying a person who used a gun or somehow defining a crime. Only the police, witnesses or other evidence can do that. So once again, this is an irrelevant argument against this technology.
It is hard to imagine that people who live in neighborhoods where ShotSpotter technology is used would oppose it. Certainly, most residents would like to see lower crime rates and less use of guns, but anything that can help identify criminal behavior, such as the shooting of a gun, should be welcome.
— Rolfe Jaremus, Woodridge
Response to Haley’s op-ed
Thank you for printing the op-ed by Nikki Haley, “We have a country to save” (March 1). It should have been titled, “We have a party to save.” Her comments about how President Joe Biden “is running this country into the ground” are ridiculous. Biden has been the voice of reason during a very tumultuous time. He has brought down inflation, improved American businesses, and helped bring about passage of legislation to tackle crumbling infrastructure and climate change, among other accomplishments. He has shown our allies around the world that the U.S. stands by its commitments.
Haley blames the retreat from Afghanistan as the cause of war in Ukraine and in the Mideast. The war in the Ukraine was caused by Russian President Vladimir Putin trying to restore what he thinks are the glory days of the Soviet Union. The war in the Mideast was caused by Hamas trying to eliminate Israel. And didn’t a Republican, George W. Bush, start the war in Afghanistan?
The end of her op-ed makes the most sense when she states that “the Republican Party must move beyond Trump.” It is reprehensible that House Republicans have brought us to the brink of shutdown four times since the fiscal year began on Oct. 1. It is beyond reprehensible that the same group will not give Ukraine the military hardware it needs to defeat Putin. It is beyond hypocrisy that they will not solve the border crisis with the very plan they had been advocating. This is because they are taking orders from a person who has been elected to nothing.
I do not know if Haley can save this Republican Party. At this point, I hope it self-destructs. Maybe then a new conservative party could form and get back to the business of governing again by doing what Republicans are supposed to do — compromise with Democrats.
— Jan Goldberg, Riverside
Biden failed our Afghan allies
While this country anguishes about all the South Americans fleeing their countries for the United States, what about the people who truly earned the right to enter the U.S.? I am speaking of the Afghans who supported and assisted our mission and troops in Afghanistan and were left behind and forgotten after an ill-planned pullout This is truly the real failure of President Joe Biden’s immigration policy, which is being ignored.
— Steve Sterner, Libertyville
Flaws of Invest in Kids report
I was disappointed to read the Feb. 29 article “Report shows Invest in Kids students got outperformed.” It fails to address critical deficiencies in the report.
The Illinois State Board of Education commissioned the nonprofit research agency WestEd to study the Invest in Kids tax credit scholarship’s impact. Unfortunately, the study failed its legal requirements. By law, according to the Invest in Kids Act, the report must compare the “learning gains to the statewide learning gains of public school students with socioeconomic backgrounds similar to those of students receiving scholarships.”
The study should compare low-income scholarship recipients to their low-income counterparts in public schools, as leaders from Catholic, Orthodox Jewish and scholarship-granting organizations pointed out, acknowledging the significant gap between affluent and low-income student performance. Instead, the report compared the scores of low-income scholarship recipients with the average scores of public school students of all backgrounds, including students from the state’s most affluent communities. This inaccurate comparison renders the findings meaningless. The report’s authors acknowledge this discrepancy and ask people to read the report with caution.
The ISBE even said, “ISBE has not conducted any validation of the results, so we cannot comment on the study except to echo WestEd in urging caution in interpreting the results, since the data limitations prevented any apples-to-apples comparisons.”
We’re disappointed in the report’s misrepresentation of this issue and the Tribune’s lackluster reporting on the study. We are more than happy to engage in factual discussions about the importance of educational opportunities for disadvantaged children.
— Josh Hale, president and CEO, Big Shoulders Fund
Provide kids with right tools
I strongly agree with Thomas Moriarty’s letter (“Include at-risk kids in strategy,” March 5). If we do not provide the tools to our children, how do we expect them to reach their potential and to have a future that provides them with options to be successful? If our children reach their potential, don’t they become invested in their communities? Wouldn’t this have the potential of reducing crime in our at-risk communities?
It is my opinion that, as citizens of Illinois, we should encourage many organizations that can be developed to provide our children with tools to succeed in life.
— Patricia Bonk, Midlothian
