Considering drive-by shootings in an era of self-driving cars.
Drive-by shootings continue to be in the news and seem to be occurring at an alarming pace.
Those that undertake this heinous act are often doing so on the basis that they believe they will not be caught.
Here’s why they believe so.
Via a car, it is possible to be somewhat hidden within the vehicle, not especially noticeable from the outside, and rapidly approach wherever the perpetrator intends to fire a shot, along with having a speedy getaway after shooting at their target.
All in all, a car provides several crucial elements in the performance of a drive-by shooting.
The car is a kind of protector.
It helps to disguise or hide the perpetrator. A targeted person does not necessarily realize that the car holds someone desiring to shoot at them. Also, if the fired at intended target attempts to shoot back at the shooter, once the initial shots are fired, the car acts as a type of shield. Thus, a car is handy as a means of committing a drive-by shooting since it provides a form of protective cover.
The car aids in rapidly committing the drive-by act.
Speed in the case of drive-by shootings is frequently a key tactic that the perpetrator relies upon. If they were slowly approaching the intended target on say foot, they might be discovered, and a preemptive strike might occur, or the target might have time to hide or flee. After the perpetrator takes a shot, they could get rushed in response, but with a car, they can quickly drive away from the scene.
The car can be said to bolster the perpetrator in a willingness to do a drive-by shooting.
Those that commit a drive-by shooting are potentially bolstered by being inside a car, feeling less vulnerable, and gaining a sense of anonymity that no one will necessarily know that they committed the crime. In some cases, the perpetrator purposely pokes their head out of the car to let the intended target know it is them, yet assumes doing so will only reveal themselves to the victim and not otherwise readily showcase their criminal activity to other potential eyewitnesses.
Statistics about drive-by shootings are somewhat sporadically recorded and not especially thoroughly logged on a nationwide basis.
A prior study that examined drive-by shooting counts came to some interesting and tentative indications (be careful in using these results since it was a point-in-time study and other limitations apply), including:
· About half of drive-by shootings occurred at a targeted residence
· Other locales included street corners, parking lots, basketball courts, bus stops, etc.
· Drive-by shootings tended to occur at nighttime, usually between 7 p.m. and midnight
· Peak months were in the summertime, lowest months in the winter
· Gang involvement was a common underlying aspect
Generally, those identified characteristics seem to make intuitive sense, namely that a drive-by shooting would tend to be done at nighttime, providing the added cover of darkness, and more so during the summer months, when people are outdoors, and that the location would be near a residence which presumably is where the target is known to be or likely to live, along with other locations that might be prime places to spot the intended victim.
The listed Top 10 ranked states for overall counts of drive-by shootings were noted as (from most to less):
· California
· Texas
· Florida
· Illinois
· Washington (tied with Illinois)
· Oklahoma
· North Carolina
· Georgia
· New York
· Louisiana
Some states have laws specifically directed at drive-by shootings, providing a particular indication about the nature and repercussions associated with this decidedly illegal act, see a list here of various state-by-state enacted drive-by shooting regulations.
Besides the harm to an intended victim, a drive-by shooting is bound to potentially incur collateral damage, possibly striking innocent bystanders. The shooter might fire multiple rounds, doing so on a scatter-gun manner in hopes of striking the intended target and horrifically those rounds might find their way to hitting bystanders.
An additional reason for the bullets hitting others is that the shooter inside a car is presumably not able to as readily aim at their intended target, having to do so from inside the vehicle, and even when outstretching an arm to try and use the firearm slightly outside the interior of the car, the result is likely to be poorly aimed (the shooter is undoubtedly nervous and anxious too, effecting any accurate discharge of the firearm).
The car is usually in motion, though perhaps having slowed down, yet nonetheless adds another confounding factor in being able to aim precisely at the victim, as does the potential distance to the target since the car is most likely on the roadway and the target is some distance from the street (which, also explains why the instances of a bus stop or street corner are sometimes used, providing a closer-in target).
Why do people do drive-by shootings?
One obvious intent is gang-related.
A rival of a gang might seek to shoot someone in a targeted gang. Trying to get near to the intended target by walking up to them could be difficult, perhaps due to being surrounded by a protective force of fellow gang members, and thus a quick drive-by seems to offer a chance of catching the victim off-guard and allowing too for an escape without harm.
The drive-by shooting might be intended to kill, yet only end-up injuring the victim or might be intending to injure and yet result in killing the victim (or others).
Drive-by shootings will frequently lead to a retributive act, and therefore one drive-by shooting can spark a spate of subsequent drive-by shootings by each side, in turn. This provides a kind of multiplier and can in a sense socially and virally trigger a series of drive-by shooting efforts.
Other reasons that people do drive-by shootings include being on drugs or drunk and opting to do a drive-by shooting while impaired, perhaps feeling strengthened in doing so due to the intoxication.
A drive-by shooting might be planned and carefully performed, or it could be ad hoc and occur on the spur of the moment. There are instances of sudden road rage whereby a driver of a vehicle got upset at another driver or a pedestrian and pulled out a gun to take a shot at the perceived offender.
The intended target might have been singled out or could be someone randomly chosen.
The law typically considers whether the drive-by shooting was willfully performed and whether it was maliciously conducted.
At times, the shooter is the driver, taking on both roles, while in other cases there is a driver, while the shooter is strictly a passenger. In theory, a passenger doing the shooting is less encumbered since they are not tasked with driving and might be more able to target the victim.
All told, this brings us to a final overarching point and important question, notably why a drive-by shooter is not necessarily caught, either at the time of the shooting or subsequently thereafter (again, stats are hard to come by on the odds of getting caught, which it seems when gangs are involved tends to be less likely, since a rival gang is presumably not likely to report the incident).
You might rightfully assume that a perpetrator ought to be somewhat readily caught, for the simple reason that they are using a car to commit the crime. One would assume that the use of a car would have a downside in that the car itself is a means to figure out the potential identity of the shooter.
A car is a large object, very noticeable, and probably has a license plate too.
Those witnessing a drive-by shooting are usually able to vaguely describe the vehicle, perhaps indicating the make and model, along with other aspects such as the paint color and so on, but are not as likely to have fully spotted the license number.
This lack of being able to discern the license plate makes sense, given the rush of the moment and the surprising jolt of witnessing a shooting taking place, and that the license itself might be hard to see or partially obscured on purpose.
Shift gears for a moment.
Suppose that there was a better way to detect and track when a drive-by shooting occurred.
Imagine an improved method or approach of detection and tracking that might significantly undercut the assumption by perpetrators that they are bound to get away with this atrocious act.
This could cause drive-by shootings to lessen.
What such means might there be?
Consider this interesting question: Will the advent of AI-based true self-driving cars be a deterrent to the act of drive-by shootings and potentially lessen or curtail this scourge?
Let’s unpack the matter and see.
Understanding The Levels Of Self-Driving Cars
As a clarification, AI-based true self-driving cars are ones that the AI drives the car entirely on its own and there isn’t any human assistance during the driving task.
These driverless vehicles are considered a Level 4 and Level 5 (see my explanation at this link here), while a car that requires a human driver to co-share the driving effort is usually considered at a Level 2 or Level 3. The cars that co-share the driving task are described as being semi-autonomous, and typically contain a variety of automated add-on’s that are referred to as ADAS (Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems).
There is not yet a true self-driving car at Level 5, which we don’t yet even know if this will be possible to achieve, and nor how long it will take to get there.
Meanwhile, the Level 4 efforts are gradually trying to get some traction by undergoing very narrow and selective public roadway trials, though there is controversy over whether this testing should be allowed per se (we are all life-or-death guinea pigs in an experiment taking place on our highways and byways, some point out, see my indication at this link here).
Since semi-autonomous cars require a human driver, the adoption of those types of cars won’t be markedly different than driving conventional vehicles, so there’s not much new per se to cover about them on this topic (though, as you’ll see in a moment, the points next made are generally applicable).
For semi-autonomous cars, it is important that the public needs to be forewarned about a disturbing aspect that’s been arising lately, namely that despite those human drivers that keep posting videos of themselves falling asleep at the wheel of a Level 2 or Level 3 car, we all need to avoid being misled into believing that the driver can take away their attention from the driving task while driving a semi-autonomous car.
You are the responsible party for the driving actions of the vehicle, regardless of how much automation might be tossed into a Level 2 or Level 3.
Self-Driving Cars And Drive-By Shootings
For Level 4 and Level 5 true self-driving vehicles, there won’t be a human driver involved in the driving task.
All occupants will be passengers.
The AI is doing the driving.
Let’s return to the question about drive-by shootings.
Your first thought might be that there will never be any drive-by shootings again since one shudders to think that the amazing innovation of true self-driving cars would be used in such an underhanded and foul manner.
Sorry to say, drive-by shootings are not quite fully obviated simply due to the emergence of self-driving cars.
Keep in mind too that it will take many years, likely decades, for self-driving cars to gradually be rolled-out on any massive scale (see my explanation for why scaling up is going to be arduous, noted at this link here), thus for a long time to come there will be a mixture of human-driven cars and self-driving cars. This suggests that human-driven cars will still be utilized, and they can continue to be part of those despicable drive-by shootings.
Focus next exclusively on self-driving cars.
Could a dastardly person use a self-driving car to commit a drive-by shooting?
Sure, why not.
Consider the following scenario.
A person with a concealed gun in their jacket pocket gets into a self-driving car and calmly instructs the AI to drive to a particular destination, making use of the in-car Natural Language Processing (NLP) system capabilities, similar to using today’s Alexa or Siri (for more on NLP for self-driving cars, see my analysis here).
It is anticipated that the AI driving system will allow passengers to also specify waypoints, such as visiting the grocery store on the way to seeing their relatives.
The evildoer with the gun could tell the AI to drive past a specific residence or street corner or wherever so desired, doing this would not raise any undue suspicion for the AI system and would simply be an expected part of any typical driving journey.
Upon getting near to the destination, the shooter might ask the AI to slow down, and then, merely open the car window and take a shot at whatever target they have in mind.
After doing so, the shooter might request the AI to speed-up and head quickly to wherever their getaway location is.
Note that the shooter isn’t driving the car and therefore is solely in the role of being a passenger, meaning too that they perhaps are more able to skilfully aim their shot and not be distracted by the driving task. This aspect is an unfortunate “advantage” for those wishing to use a self-driving car as part of drive-by shooting activity.
Notice too that the shooter might have overtly planned to conduct the drive-by shooting, or they could be generally touting a firearm and have decided to randomly do the shooting, maybe opportunistically based on the perchance moment of seeing someone they wanted to take a shot at.
It is a sad fact that self-driving cars could be used in this appalling way (for my assessment of road rage amidst the use of self-driving cars, see this link here).
When I mention that drive-by shootings could occur while using a self-driving, some are aghast and insist that we ought to not discuss this possibility else it will plant a seed in the minds of those that are bent on drive-by shootings.
Please know that a head-in-the-sand approach is not wise and will simply mean that once people figure out that they can use a self-driving car for such a purpose, everyone will be caught by surprise and be exceedingly flatfooted as to what to do.
Instead, a more astute approach involves trying to develop and deploy self-driving cars in a manner that will seek to reduce or mitigate the chances of someone undertaking a drive-by shooting while inside a self-driving car.
Let’s consider how this can be undertaken.
In the natural course of devising self-driving cars, one already preexistent stopping block is that presumably the AI will not peel out and push the pedal to the floor to screech away from the scene of the shooting. By-and-large, most of the automakers and self-driving tech firms are trying to ensure that the AI drives civilly, and certainly drives within the speed limits (though, see my discussion on why this assumption has some serious flaws, at this link here).
Someone anticipating doing a drive-by shooting is not going to be able to flee the scene so rapidly as they might have if they or an accomplice were driving in a conventional car.
But they could nonetheless still take a shot, plus they might not even ask the AI to slow down, and the vehicle could be already underway and zipping along at whatever speed limit is allowed.
The point is that the legal driving activity of an AI-based true self-driving car does not preclude a drive-by shooting per se, and merely makes it more cumbersome and possibly less alluring to a perpetrator.
There is more though that a self-driving car can be made to do to undermine drive-by shootings.
Most self-driving cars will have inward-facing cameras and an audio system, used to both see and hear the passengers inside the vehicle. This will be likely desirous especially by ride-sharing and rental firms that want to detect whether a passenger has opted to mark graffiti inside the vehicle or perhaps is damaging the seats or interior.
I’ve repeatedly pointed out that this will raise contentious privacy questions, including how such video recordings might be used or distributed by the fleet owners of self-driving cars (see more on this at the link here).
In any case, self-driving cars equipped with the inward-facing cameras would seem to be a notable deterrent for any drive-by shooter, since the wrongdoers would be captured on-tape as they commit their shameful act.
This could make drive-shooters think twice before taking such actions.
Of course, the shooter could opt to wear a disguise and might use a fake ID as part of the rental or ride-sharing payment for the use of the self-driving car.
Sadly, where there is a will, there is a way.
Another facet of a self-driving car that could aid in potentially curtailing drive-by shootings has to do with the abundance of state-of-the-art sensors bundled into the self-driving car for driving purposes.
Those sophisticated sensory devices such as specialized cameras, radar, LIDAR, thermal imaging, ultrasonic, and so on, will be continuously scanning the surroundings of the self-driving car. The collected data is used by the AI as its eyes and ears, as it were, for ascertaining where to drive and what to avoid such as other cars and nearby pedestrians.
As a quick aside, this once again opens another privacy can of worms, due to the reality that when a self-driving car goes down your neighborhood street, it is likely recording everything it detects. This can be uploaded into a cloud-based system, via OTA (Over-The-Air) electronic communications, and then stitched together with other data from thousands upon thousands of other self-driving cars.
Your privacy is at risk due to this roving eye (see my indication at this link here).
In any case, what is good or bad for the goose can be equally good or bad for the gander.
The AI could potentially detect that a gun was fired from within the self-driving car (even if an arm was outstretched in doing so), based on a combination of the inward-facing sensors and the outward-facing sensors, and could be recording the act, along with monitoring any such activity in real-time during a driving journey.
Conclusion
What might the AI do?
Nobody has yet pursued this in any detail, and thus right now, the AI would be “oblivious” and not take any notice.
Presumably, if the AI is programmed to detect this kind of activity, it could take any number of actions.
One action would be to immediately contact the police.
Another would be to bring the car to a halt, which would put the shooter in presumed dire straits, and thus they might not want to use a self-driving car due to the realization it is going to leave them at the mercy of their potential prey (this is not necessarily a discouragement per se and a drive-by shooter might have anticipated this accordingly).
The self-driving car would at least have a recording of what took place, which might be useful to authorities when trying to track down the culprit.
Unfortunately, none of these are ironclad ways to prevent a drive-by shooting (some dreamily envision that the car would auto-lock the person in the vehicle and zoom over to the nearest police station, but this is both Utopian and Dystopian at the same time, and not in the cards anytime soon, if ever).
Criminals undoubtedly will be using a cat-and-mouse approach of figuring out ways to try and circumvent the detection and actions of the AI, though this does not mean that we shouldn’t put in place as many barriers and hurdles as we can.
Right now, the automakers and self-driving firms have their hands full of just getting self-driving cars to work, safely so, and in everyday uses, though soon enough the real-world will catch-up with self-driving cars and more advanced aspects will need to be devised to cope with matters such as the menace of a drive-by shooting.
Perhaps someday the AI will be sharp enough that it will be able to take an active role in discouraging drive-by shooters, talking them out of their vile acts.
That is an AI for social good that we could all relish.
