>> Omnilert later admitted the incident was a “false positive” but claimed the system “functioned as intended,” saying its purpose is to “prioritize safety and awareness through rapid human verification.”
No. If you're investigating someone and have existing reason to believe they are armed then this kind of false positive might be prioritizing safety. But in a general surveillance of a public place, IMHO you need to prioritize accuracy since false positives are very bad. This kid was one itchy trigger-pull away from death over nothing - that's not erring on the side of safety. You don't have to catch every criminal by putting everyone under a microscope, you should be catching the blatantly obvious ones at scale though.
The perceived threat of government forces assaulting and potentially killing me for reasons i have no control over, this is the kind of stuff that terminates the social contract. I'd want a new state that protects me from such stuff.