A fatal shooting in Cambridge on the Fourth of July that claimed the life of a 32-year-old city resident and public works employee has reignited a debate over the City Council’s recent decision to abandon the use of audio technology called ShotSpotter meant to detect gunshots and alert police.
While detectives from Cambridge police and the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office investigate the death of Xavier Bautista — whose body was found around 5:30 a.m. near the intersection of Broadway and Norfolk streets — local police say Bautista’s life might have been saved if ShotSpotter sensors were still activated in Cambridge.
“If ShotSpotter detection was received at the time of this incident, Cambridge emergency personnel would have had the opportunity to discover the scene much sooner,” stated a joint statement from the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association and Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association on Monday. “There was no opportunity for the victim to receive emergency aid for approximately 60 minutes. This is directly related to the City Council’s mandate removing ShotSpotter technology from deployment in Cambridge.”
Police believe Bautista was shot shortly before 4:30 a.m., about an hour before a pedestrian saw his body and called 911.
The shooting death comes less than two months after a majority of city councilors voted to stop the Cambridge’s use of the gunshot detection surveillance system. The debate highlighted national concerns about gun violence as well as heightened concerns about government surveillance.
Councilors backing the move to end the contract said ShotSpotter risks violating residents’ privacy and data being potentially accessed by federal law enforcement. But other councilors pushed back, arguing the technology helped police respond quickly to emergencies.
Cambridge City Councilor Patricia Nolan said there is not enough information to determine if ShotSpotter sensors could have prevented the death of Bautista.
“It’s irresponsible to assert that (ShotSpotter) would have made a difference because we don’t know,” she told GBH News Tuesday. “We should let the investigation conclude and not jump to conclusions about whether any technology could have prevented this sad tragedy. We also know it was on a Fourth of July weekend when there’s lots of sounds that can be confused for gunshots that may have also overwhelmed the system.”
SoundThinking Inc., the company behind ShotSpotter, said in a statement that the death of Bautista “underscores a devastating reality that public safety agencies confront every day: more than 80 percent of gunfire incidents are never reported via 911.”
“Generally, immediate response to a gunfire incident significantly increases the likelihood that relevant physical evidence will be recovered and potentially life-saving medical aid administered.”
However, Kade Crockford, director of the Technology for Liberty Program at the ACLU of Massachusetts, has argued that gunfire detection systems deployed in American cities have high rates of misidentifying sounds as firearms-related, saying “ShotSpotter is not an effective tool. It produces error rates that are astonishingly high.”
Two Cambridge city councilors who voted to keep ShotSpotter criticized their board’s action in May, writing in the Boston Globe that the action was based on fear and ideology and “rejected a tool that could help save lives.”
“People may stay silent out of fear, confusion, or mistrust,” wrote Councilors Tim Flaherty and E. Denise Simmons. “In recent years, shootings and gun-related incidents involving youth from Cambridge and neighboring Somerville have shaken neighborhoods and raised serious questions about response time. Even if no one is killed, the damage is real: families frightened, streets disrupted, and residents left wondering whether help will arrive in time.”
Cambridge officials said they will hold an in-person only community meeting tomorrow from 6:30 until 8 p.m. at the Cambridge Senior Center, 806 Massachusetts Avenue.
