If the cop didn't have a gun on him Brown would still be alive.
Likewise if Brown had been white, in all probability.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If the cop didn't have a gun on him Brown would still be alive.
If you're a POC you're less likely to be shot by the cops.
You keep saying that but you have not cited a study.
I have, and you have simply ignored it and repeated your denials.
You cited a bullshit comment . . .
In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race).
But data scientists and policing experts often note, comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population.
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.
U.S. police officers have shot and killed the exact same number of unarmed white people as they have unarmed black people: 50 each. But because the white population is approximately five times as great as the black population, that means unarmed black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer.
You didn't even open it, did you?
Yes I did, you still don't understand that is based off of total population demographics which have NOTHING to do with police<->criminal interactions.
"African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers."
That doesn't make black Americans 2.5 times as likely as white to be shot and killed by police officers . . .
Yes, that's exactly what it does. I cannot follow your reasoning to the contrary because you are not providing any.
Perhaps it might help if you were to link that Harvard study, which you insist you have linked several times before. I cannot recall seeing that ever, but if it is true, linking it again should be the easiest thing in the world.
Yes, that's exactly what it does. I cannot follow your reasoning to the contrary because you are not providing any.
Perhaps it might help if you were to link that Harvard study, which you insist you have linked several times before. I cannot recall seeing that ever, but if it is true, linking it again should be the easiest thing in the world.
That's because it wasn't confirmation bias provided by your Salon echo chamber so you of course totally ignored it. Because you know Salon editors are head and shoulders above Harvard when it comes to research.![]()
Total demographic populations have NOTHING to do with police<->community interactions.
Trying to provide a police/community interaction statistic (2.5x more likely to be shot if black) without taking ANY factors into consideration except total population is not only intellectually dishonest but also total bullshit.
That fact can't be provided to you in any more of a simple format.
That's because it wasn't confirmation bias provided by your Salon echo chamber so you of course totally ignored it.
Not any easier or faster than googling it yourself.
Actually, that article was from the Chicago Times, referring to a study done by the Washington Post.
Fine, but the "study" was done by an idiot who made false assumptions based upon irrelevant shit.
Either you think community/police interactions fall along total population demographic percentages like the idiot who conducted said "study" or you realize cops don't interact with black Americans 13% of the time because they are 13% of the population and there is a whole lot more to the picture than the bullshit being presented.
Cops interact with black people, who commit the majority of violent crimes, more often, and shoot less of them.
Ignoring that fact is the only way that 13%=2.5 times more likely!! and pretty much all of the BLM bullshit flies.
That's because it wasn't confirmation bias provided by your Salon echo chamber so you of course totally ignored it. Because you know Salon editors are head and shoulders above Harvard when it comes to research.
Not any easier or faster than googling it yourself, if I spoon feed you again you'll just ignore it and ask me again next week.
I understand. There is, in fact, no Harvard study.
I understand. There is, in fact, no Harvard study.
Or, as ypu udually do slink away and "win" another fight another day.
......
Or. . . as you usually do, slink away and "win" another fight, another day.
You must admit they have a legitimate beef
even if it's not the one they think they have. Black Injuries Matter.
I note the headline says he is an "anti-Trump Communist" but the story does not.