[butterandguns]

I believe part of the argument is that it can lead to over policing. I’m in Cleveland where it’s been controversial because most of the devices have been deployed to predominantly black neighborhoods. So they get the most detections because that’s where the most sensors are because they were guided by police data on where the most gun violence historically has been located. Which leads to more police presence, more shakedowns, harassment of people in those neighborhoods. It can lead to a bad reinforcement loop.

[theultdev]

Devices are installed where shootings are frequently reported by civilians.

The shootings are usually gang related, not at the police, so I don't see how your theory of heightened policing causes a loop.

The best way to protect the innocent civilians in the area is to increase surveillance and police presence.

Removing police presence is a disservice to the people who are victims of the gang violence in the area. Those people are the ones who call the police and want them there.

Only if you remove the police in areas do you get a feedback loop (no protection, so you join a gang for protection, which leads to more gang violence)

[jononor]

Doesn't the police frequently bring in people for drug related things, even if the reason they were present was fun violence related?

[theultdev]

fun violence related?

gangs make money by selling drugs. they use that money to buy guns.

they then have turf wars over where they can sell drugs.

that leads to shootings which strike innocent civilians.

what do you suggest the police do? allow those gangs to sell the drugs and kill each other and other innocent bystanders?

also this thread is about whether they should monitor shootings...

[jononor]

Gun violence! Apologize for the typo, I spotted it after edit window ended.

I am not proposing to do anything. I just described a possible mechanism for how additional policing can lead to additional incarceration, aside from homicide and attempted murders.

[LorenPechtel]

Only if you fall into the trap of thinking that disparate impact = discrimination. It's easier to blame selective enforcement than accept that there's a problem there.

That being said, there has been abuse with them. Police pushing to classify ambiguous sounds as shots to justify their actions.

[daft_pink]

I guess that argument might make some sense with “victimless crimes” like drugs where it’s possible that people in other neighborhoods are doing drugs and the amount and level of police makes it appear certain people are commiting more crimes.

However, I’m not convinced that things like shootings and murder is something that’s being enforced less in other areas of the city as you are probably going to end up in a hospital or discovered either way. You might think it would be more likely to be reported in other areas where the community generally supports the police or has more access to healthcare. So I think it’s totally logical and reasonable to install these tools where the most murders and shootings occur and to have a higher police presence there to try and reduce them.