This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Gunshots last night on Franklin Av.? — Brooklynian

Gunshots last night on Franklin Av.?

ap
ap
edited November -1 in Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens

We heard plenty of commotion last night on Franklin Av., just outside 95 South (typical for a Sat. night). Around 2:30am, we heard four gunshots in quick succession.

Anyone else hear this or know anything about it? Cops were on the scene in about 2 minutes but we didn't hear much after that.

Comments

  • whynot_31
    whynot_31

    The sources I use (SpotCrime, Gothamist newsmap, etc) only cover gun shots that result in someone actually being shot. They seem to have nothing to report.

    So, it was likely an intoxicated person with a gun and bad aim, or an intoxicated person not shooting at a person.

    I don't like intoxicated armed people.

  • epiclylaterd
    epiclylaterd

    We had two shots last night on Park Place near Nostrand. I'm failing terribly to understand the humor in shooting into the air, running into the building to hide the gun, walking nonchalantly down the block and then laughing when the cops roll down the street looking for the source.

  • whynot_31
    whynot_31

    I've always thought of them being a version of the kid I knew in high school; He would pull fire alarms when no one was looking then laugh at the fire trucks arriving and the principal's attempts to figure out who was doing it.

    He spent much of high school intoxicated, and still goes to jail pretty regularly for stupidity.

    I suspect the characters are almost identical.

  • whynot_31
    whynot_31

    A service known as Shot Spotter is used by some police departments, but it has significant limitations. For example, it doesn't seem like it would catch the folks who shoot guns for the fun of seeing the cops respond.

    The NYT is running an article on it in tomorrow's print edition. I found it a somewhat thought provoking read:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/us/shots-heard-pinpointed-and-argued-over.html?pagewanted=all

  • ap
    ap

    And the hot weather only makes intoxicated idiots act more idiotic and everyone else more agitated and impatient. I'm certainly NOT looking forward to another summer replete with flared tempers resulting in senseless acts of violence and idiocy. Let's hope the cops are on their game as temperatures rise.

  • eastbloc
    eastbloc

    Shot Spotter makes a lot more sense to me than a lot of other Bloomberg anti-gun measures.

    The idea that "there aren't enough police to respond to all gunshots" is patently ridiculous to me. Considering all of the things I see them wasting time with, I can't think of what more important things they might be doing.

  • whynot_31
    whynot_31

    The big disadvantage I see with Shot Spotter is that it does not tell you whether someone was hit. At least when someone calls 911, the dispatcher can ask them if they are aware of someone being injured. If the caller doesn't know, they can send a patrol car when available.

    If the caller says there is a guy bleeding on the ground, they can dispatch police and EMS urgently.

    Shot Spotter seems to tell police departments with certainty that those were gun shots, and puts a (poorly defined) obligation on the police to respond.

    As an advantage, Shot Spotter seems like it could save police resources regarding people who call thinking they heard gunshots, when instead they heard merely fireworks. In this latter instance, they would have the info to assign the call a very low priority, and attend to more urgent matters. At present, the dispatcher is forced to decide whether the caller is credible re: knowing the difference between gun shots and other sounds.

    ...I suspect that (at present) dispatchers are coached on what makes a call credible, and those who repeatedly send the police on erroneous urgent calls are unlikely to remain in their job for long.

  • eastbloc
    eastbloc

    I'd want police to show up to wherever there were gunshots regardless of whether someone was hit. It's at the very least a case of criminal possession of a weapon and reckless endangerment.

    If I called them up and told them someone was shooting in the air or at a wall or whatever, they'd definitely want to come check it out. In this case, the position of the police is that 'ignorance is bliss.'

  • whynot_31
    whynot_31

    Sadly, ignorance is often truly bliss.

    In many parts of the city, this "approach" by the police (be it due to attitude or lack of resources) is part of why residents do not call the police when they hear gunshots unless they are certain someone has actually been hit.

    While no one wants to live near a person who shoots a gun off for the hell of it (or at a human target they miss), the frequency of such events in another factor.

    Finally, some people only call 911 when someone they like that has been hit. "Why would I call if someone I don't like has been shot?"

    ah, summer in Crown Heights. It is improving, but it has so far to go.....

  • whynot_31
    whynot_31

    I have a hard time justifying the cost. I think video cameras make more sense, because then you might get an image of who did the shooting. Hopefully the images taken by those NYPD cameras are high res, and can actually provide worthwhile, detailed info.

    Short video discussing microphone shot detection/locator technology:


Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories