Concerns over racism prompted the Cambridge, Massachusetts, city council to vote to end its contract with the company that provides ShotSpotter technology, which detects gunshots and alerts police in real time, on Monday night.
The move came just a week after suspected gunman Tyler Brown, 46, was accused by police of randomly opening fire, shooting 50 to 60 rounds into traffic on Memorial Drive in Cambridge, injuring two.
The incident was caught on video and quickly went viral. Brown was a repeat offender who had been let out of prison early despite a previous altercation where he shot at police officers. One of the victims of that incident warned in an impact statement that, “when Mr. Tyler Brown gets out, he will hurt, or worse, kill someone.”
Still, Cambridge residents lined up at Monday’s city council meeting to advocate for the end of the technology.
“The use of ShotSpotter, which disproportionately targets marginalized Black and Brown communities, is unjust and directly threatens the liberty and well-being of our communities,” said resident Lily Grob, who described herself as a “newly-minted social worker.”
“As a social worker, I work primarily with Black and Brown, low-income and immigrant children and their families. More than ever, these communities are living under immense fear which I see actively as manifesting as a mental health crisis for children and their families,” she said.
Councilor Ayah A. Al-Zubi, a democratic socialist, introduced the measure to remove the gunshot detection tool in April. Several self-identified members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) spoke at the meeting.
Another resident, Kayla Goodale, factored race into her advocacy for the end of ShotSpotter in the city.
“ShotSpotter is unfettered surveillance on the largest populations of Black and Brown residents of Cambridge,” she said. “ShotSpotter is funded by DHS and undermines Cambridge’s status as a sanctuary city and undermines our commitment to not collaborate with ICE.”
Local law enforcement often uses DHS grants to fund the technology, which many other residents raised as a concern, along with the fact that the city council did not vote to implement ShotSpotter before it was rolled out citywide in 2014.
Resident Andrew Feldman said he knows friends and family who avoid traveling near ShotSpotter to avoid “racialized policing.”
Ben Amado said the technology is “constantly listening to Black and Brown communities here in Cambridge, taking advantage of people’s very real trauma around gun violence and presenting uncountable surveillance as a solution.”
“Again, I do not consent for our vulnerable neighbors in our welcomed community sanctuary city at risk,” said resident Brooke Feinberg. “I do not consent to being under constant surveillance by nature of just moving about Cambridge.”
Ultimately, the council voted 5-2-2 to remove the technology.
Joe Gamaldi, the national vice president of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), slammed the political left for its opposition to ShotSpotter.
“ShotSpotter has been proven time and again to reduce police response times, assist in evidence collection… and capture suspects,” he said. “Yet here we go again with those on the far left attempting to limit the tools of law enforcement at the price of safety in our communities.”
“It’s embarrassing and disgusting that they put their own ideology and anti-police policies over the safety of the innocent members of our communities,” he continued.
Cambridge City Councilor Patty Nolan told Fox News Digital she voted to end ShotSpotter’s contract because of concerns raised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and because she doesn’t think ShotSpotter makes the city safer.
“I note that I support the cameras the city has in place in Central Square, which the police department has also supported,” she said. “And when the Council voted to end the use of Flock cameras, the police department concurred. So this issue is not one that means the council is against technology, or all cameras. I stand in favor of technology that is effective and keeps us safe, when the benefits outweigh the concerns.”
