Exclusive Q&A: Ralph Clark on Chicago’s ShotSpotter Controversy and City Council Vote

Ralph Clark, CEO of SoundThinking, spoke exclusively to The Chicago Defender about the technology’s value and the implications of the council’s decision (Photo Credits: Wikimedia Commons and soundthinking.com).

Earlier this week, the City Council overwhelmingly voted to grant Chicago police superintendent Larry Snelling the power to renew the city’s ShotSpotter contract. This move defied Mayor Brandon Johnson’s wish to terminate the controversial gun detection technology.

Not long after that vote, Johnson vowed to veto the measure that passed 33-14, calling it illegal because, in the words of Corporation Counsel Mary Richardson-Lowry, the ordinance is “in violation of the separation of powers act.” Richardson-Lowry explained, “The legislative branch cannot compel the executive branch to act.”

The progressive mayor campaigned on ending the city’s contract with ShotSpotter on the basis that it had little effect on prosecuting gun cases and disproportionately impacted Black and Brown communities. It’s worth noting that in February, Johnson voted to extend the contract to cover the summer months and the Democratic National Convention, a period in the city where violence increases typically.

Make no mistake: Johnson is not a fan. Most recently, he referred to ShotSpotter as a “walkie-talkie on a pole.”

Just hours before the contract is set to end in Chicago, Ralph Clark, the CEO of SoundThinking, the company behind the technology, met with The Chicago Defender to share his thoughts about the City Council vote, the mayor’s promised veto and the technology’s value.

Tacuma Roeback: How do you feel about the recent City Council vote in favor of keeping ShotSpotter despite the mayor’s indication of a potential veto?

Ralph Clark: Well, I would say we’re incredibly grateful for the really strong support that we’ve seen, not only from the City Council but also from a number of editorial boards, and academic research. I think there was a pretty compelling poll that was done on the residents of Chicago, particularly in the areas that are affected by gun violence, that also came out in very strong support. So we’re incredibly grateful for all that. But I also have to add that we’re disappointed that we even have to have this kind of debate here in the city of Chicago, given the long-term relationship that we’ve had with Chicago PD in helping them address gun violence that is typically underreported by as much as 80 to 90% of the time by a traditional 911.

Tacuma Roeback: What is your message to supporters and even critics of the technology?

Ralph Clark: I say the same thing to both supporters and critics. Look at the data and understand the fact that 80 to 90% of gun violence goes unreported by a 911, which means that’s a public safety gap that we help close to our technology. This technology is not the end all be all to prevent and reduce gun violence in and of itself. We’ve never positioned the technology that way. It really is a very effective tool to make the Chicago Police Department and first responders aware of gun violence in real-time.

As a result, getting them there to these incidents of gun violence helps them be able to save the lives of gunshot wound victims who otherwise would potentially bleed out. And that was really quite interesting again, to go back to the University of Chicago Crime Lab study that showed that up to 85 people’s lives are in the balance per year based on their academic research. I personally think it’s bigger than that, but I’ll certainly stand by the 85. That’s incredibly impactful that a technology could be of assistance in helping first responders get to the scenes of gunshot wound victims and save lives.

 

 

Tacuma Roeback: What will replace ShotSpotter if it’s removed? In your opinion, are there any viable alternatives to gunshot detection technology, and what role do you see ShotSpotter playing in the future of public safety?

Ralph Clark: So, first and foremost, I’m not aware of anything out there on the market that can provide the type of service that we provide in terms of being able to reliably detect, locate and alert on gunfire without a lot of false positives or false negatives within 30 to 45 seconds of the trigger being pulled.

Our technology is used in evidence collection. It’s used in court cases. We’ve met all manner of evidentiary standards, I would say. And so I’m not aware of anything. I think the idea of making it an either-or situation is really quite dangerous. We’ve always approached this as, with respect to gun violence, it’s not an “either-or.” It’s an “and.” It’s ShotSpotter and violence interruptions. It’s ShotSpotter and community policing. It’s ShotSpotter and a whole bunch of things: cameras, license plate readers, strategic decision support centers, trauma care kits.

I think even knowing someone who had that experience is traumatic, or listening to gunfire and not seeing a police response is very traumatic for communities because it leads them to believe that their care and safety are not prioritized by the city.

Just imagine this world where now, 80 to 90% of the time, someone fires a gun and no one calls 911 for a lot of really interesting reasons that are understandable. I would say, from retribution to, ‘Gee, do I recognize it as gunfire?’ And probably the most hurtful one is that people are just resigned to, ‘Hey, that’s just the way it is.’ But now imagine this gunfire takes place and no one shows up, and the reason they don’t show up is because they don’t know about it. Our technology hasn’t been there. How discouraging and traumatic would that be for a number of neighborhoods that are dealing with ongoing, persistent gun violence? It is not a problem for people who live in Lincoln Park, but unfortunately, in some parts of the city, it is an issue. We just want to be able to be equipped to help.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.