[cratermoon]

> If you designed a polar bear detector to help prevent people from being eaten by polar bears, would you also deploy them in Florida for the sake of fairness

This is already reinforcing bias, because your question presumes that the places law enforcement deploys this tech are where it needs to be. To use your analogy, cops like deploying polar bear detectors based on how much snow falls in a place, because "everyone" knows that polar bears live in snowy places.

[fallingknife]

This system is not designed to find out where shootings happen. We know that already. It's just designed to detect them faster.

[20after4]

No it's designed to manufacture evidence that they can use to help them get arrest warrants and eventually convictions.

[cratermoon]

> We know that already

No, we don't. We know where law enforcement, which we already know is biased, reports shootings happening.Those are two completely different things.

[fallingknife]

There is no organized conspiracy among law enforcement to hide the location of shootings.

[8note]

There doesn't have to be. That's why it's bias.

For a really contrived example, in a police department of one for the whole world, put the only officer in Antarctica. You'll find there's only officially shootings in Antarctica

[fallingknife]

The Antarctica example is not meaningful in the US where police are a universally present institution. There is not a significant number of unreported shootings in the USA. Bodies get found. Victims show up at the hospital. People call the police.

If you are claiming that there is significant bias here, you must present evidence that there are unreported shootings in an amount to make up a significant percent of all shootings in the US, or that there is an organized conspiracy by law enforcement to mislead the public about the location of shootings.