Do you seriously think by "minority" they meant at the local populace level and not national populace level? When has that ever been the colloquial use?
1) Jackson MS is 80+% black.
2) The (mayor + city council) of Jackson MS is 75% black
3) The command staff of Jackson MS police department is 100% black.
4) The city and police department decided to deploy shot spotter in Jackson
5) (don't get distracted by this please) The city has not deployed shot spotter in areas that are predominantly white
Given those 5 points, where is Jackson deploying their shot spotter tech? Is it in predominantly black/minority neighborhoods? Yes.
Why are they doing that? Does the predominantly black government intend to keep black people down?
This may be non obvious but for example black cops tend to use disproportionate force against black suspects in areas where such behavior is culturally and systemically tolerated. Cops and suspects are in an adversarial situation and being part of team cop or team suspect is more important than sharing a skin color.
An infallible argument; the oppressee can just as well be opressor, because otherwise we'd have to reconsider our preferred conjecture.
The alternative is like a mirror of the argument that a fellow isn't racist because he has a black friend. It's parody masquerading as analysis.
Also it's my experience that if an all black community decides to enact public policy that goes against the narrative, it's almost exclusively young white progressives that come up with these sorts of agency-removing arguments to protect their preferred worldview
The topic of discussion is a company that produces a product that due to echos and analysis doesn't actually know where or if guns are fired being deployed in shitty crime ridden neighborhoods where disproportionately minorities being poorer are obliged to live. In the context of the gun shot imaginer system they have been literally caught doctoring data to match what the police wanted to be true in order to obtain a conviction.
Multiple things can be true. The shot spotter can be deployed in areas where gun fire actually and truly is more common, it can be misused to shake down or frame people in that area, such behavior can primarily be misused against people in that area, because more poor black people are obliged to live their they can in turn fall victim to such bad behavior more frequently even if not specifically targeted by law enforcement. Further faced with multi decade scare tactics and shitty public defenders poor people and by extension disproportionately minorities flinch and cop pleas.
This is how you fill your prisons up with black people.
This is literally what systemic racism means. Its a racist outcome of a fucked up system even when said system isn't consciously malicious and lets be a little honest with each other. We both know that there is plenty of honest bigotry. There are plenty of folks in government and plenty of folks in uniform that wouldn't mind donning a sheet and burning a cross in their neighbors lawn.
America was born in racism and as much as we hope to generation by generation make it more equal some of us remain more equal than others and a lot of us like it that way.
Even if the response that used it differently was meant to make a valid point (I believe it was, as they expanded on it later), the way they used minority did nothing to help that point and instead caused unnecessary contention.
It would have been far more effective for their point to say "Jackson MS has a population and police department that are both majority black, and they still choose to deploy shotspotter in black neighborhoods.". Then we could jump right to exploring reasons why that might be, including valid uses of shotspotter because of effectivenessas well as other incentives regardless of it's effectiveness.