3 ms·
Two thoughts: 1) Why is this conversation happening in this subthread? What does this have to do with nonrandomstring's experience in doing similar work for th
by lolinder 3y ago
Two thoughts:
1) Why is this conversation happening in this subthread? What does this have to do with nonrandomstring's experience in doing similar work for the military?
2) Nothing in the passage you quoted insinuates anything about the reasoning for surveiling poor neighborhoods more than rich. It simply points out that this is a thing that is happening.
Earlier they said this:
> Many assumed that ShotSpotter coverage was concentrated in disadvantaged parts of the city, an unsurprising outcome but one that could contribute to systemic overpolicing.
It's unsurprising because that is where the crime tends to take place, but there's a valid concern raised that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I've read some highly political anti-police rants in the past few years, but this isn't one of them. The author barely makes their opinions known at all, and when they do they're very aware of the complexities.
- bko 3y ago[flagged]
- jncfhnb 3y agoPolice presence increased the detection of crime and thus increases the statistics of crime in the area
- ta988 3y agoSo the bodies of people shot are seen more often in high police presence areas and just not found in other areas? That seem strange that it would be due to higher police presence. The fact that for non violent crimes the stats are skewed sound plausible but that seem less so for violent ones.
- Talanes 3y agoYou're literally ignoring every argument in favor of your "detector." Who's not acting in good faith here again?