Blacks killed by cops.

[bellisarius]

A subject that has been thoroughly destroyed by false "percentages."

Let's start with the disclosure that I' drawing from several sources, Snopes, CIA World Factbook, and the FBI-UCR being among them.

In 2015 1,388 citizens were killed by the police. Of those 318 were black and 560 were white. The balance were of "other" ethnic/racial backgrounds. So in raw numbers more whites were killed than blacks. 17% more as a matter of fact. Those numbers are from 2015 and while the year to year total changes, the proportions remain mostly the same.

But hold on here, blacks only represent 13% of the population. Proportionately only 180 blacks should have been killed by the police. Where as whites represent 66% of the population, therefore 916 should have been killed by police, right? All the numbers (percentages) are correct. Obviously blacks are killed at twice the rate of whites.

Make sense to you?

All of those numbers above are bogus (except the raw number), sleight of math. Bullshit peddled by the press.

Time for a reality check. The proportion of your group that is killed by the police is directly proportional to the felonies your groups commits, NOT your proportion of the population. The reasoning is straight forward, the probability of interaction with the police is proportional to the crime rate for your group. If your group happens to be one-legged, Asian lesbians and your group commits 1% of all felonies then the rules of statistics dictate that your group should be 1% of all citizens killed by the police. If it's .5% then you're under-represented and if it's 1.5% you're over-represented.

Fact, 54% of ALL felonies committed in the US are committed by blacks. Applying the rule of proportionality based on felonious behavior the police should have shot 749 blacks in 2015. They are under-represented by a factor of 2 (200%). Conversely whites are over-represented by a factor of 25% and that's not taking into consideration the Hispanic population (approx. 17%).

Point being that if you start with a false basis you end up with a false conclusion.

 

[acerbedingfield]

that's the way to start thinking. Sadly racist leftist democrats cant figure out the truth.

Just like how a 20 year gang banger killed by another gang banger over 10 crack rocks is considered to be a "child death by firearm"

 

[Kantarii]

Interesting.

 

[Boxlicker101]

that's the way to start thinking. Sadly racist leftist democrats cant figure out the truth.

Just like how a 20 year gang banger killed by another gang banger over 10 crack rocks is considered to be a "child death by firearm"

The Dems know it, but they don't admit knowing it. They cite raw numbers or percentages, whichever best supports their lies.

 

[SissySalina]

A subject that has been thoroughly destroyed by false "percentages."

Let's start with the disclosure that I' drawing from several sources, Snopes, CIA World Factbook, and the FBI-UCR being among them.

In 2015 1,388 citizens were killed by the police. Of those 318 were black and 560 were white. The balance were of "other" ethnic/racial backgrounds. So in raw numbers more whites were killed than blacks. 17% more as a matter of fact. Those numbers are from 2015 and while the year to year total changes, the proportions remain mostly the same.

But hold on here, blacks only represent 13% of the population. Proportionately only 180 blacks should have been killed by the police. Where as whites represent 66% of the population, therefore 916 should have been killed by police, right? All the numbers (percentages) are correct. Obviously blacks are killed at twice the rate of whites.

Make sense to you?

All of those numbers above are bogus (except the raw number), sleight of math. Bullshit peddled by the press.

Time for a reality check. The proportion of your group that is killed by the police is directly proportional to the felonies your groups commits, NOT your proportion of the population. The reasoning is straight forward, the probability of interaction with the police is proportional to the crime rate for your group. If your group happens to be one-legged, Asian lesbians and your group commits 1% of all felonies then the rules of statistics dictate that your group should be 1% of all citizens killed by the police. If it's .5% then you're under-represented and if it's 1.5% you're over-represented.

Fact, 54% of ALL felonies committed in the US are committed by blacks. Applying the rule of proportionality based on felonious behavior the police should have shot 749 blacks in 2015. They are under-represented by a factor of 2 (200%). Conversely whites are over-represented by a factor of 25% and that's not taking into consideration the Hispanic population (approx. 17%).

Point being that if you start with a false basis you end up with a false conclusion.

Are those Felonies Committed charged or convicted? You really don't know how many were committed.

 

[bellisarius]

Are those Felonies Committed charged or convicted? You really don't know how many were committed.

These are crimes COMMITTED where the race of the perpetrator was known.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Good analysis...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Meanwhile, back in the Real World....

 

[30bandits]

that's the way to start thinking. Sadly racist leftist democrats cant figure out the truth.

Just like how a 20 year gang banger killed by another gang banger over 10 crack rocks is considered to be a "child death by firearm"

crack is so early 2000's....

 

[Rightguide]

A subject that has been thoroughly destroyed by false "percentages."

Let's start with the disclosure that I' drawing from several sources, Snopes, CIA World Factbook, and the FBI-UCR being among them.

In 2015 1,388 citizens were killed by the police. Of those 318 were black and 560 were white. The balance were of "other" ethnic/racial backgrounds. So in raw numbers more whites were killed than blacks. 17% more as a matter of fact. Those numbers are from 2015 and while the year to year total changes, the proportions remain mostly the same.

But hold on here, blacks only represent 13% of the population. Proportionately only 180 blacks should have been killed by the police. Where as whites represent 66% of the population, therefore 916 should have been killed by police, right? All the numbers (percentages) are correct. Obviously blacks are killed at twice the rate of whites.

Make sense to you?

All of those numbers above are bogus (except the raw number), sleight of math. Bullshit peddled by the press.

Time for a reality check. The proportion of your group that is killed by the police is directly proportional to the felonies your groups commits, NOT your proportion of the population. The reasoning is straight forward, the probability of interaction with the police is proportional to the crime rate for your group. If your group happens to be one-legged, Asian lesbians and your group commits 1% of all felonies then the rules of statistics dictate that your group should be 1% of all citizens killed by the police. If it's .5% then you're under-represented and if it's 1.5% you're over-represented.

Fact, 54% of ALL felonies committed in the US are committed by blacks. Applying the rule of proportionality based on felonious behavior the police should have shot 749 blacks in 2015. They are under-represented by a factor of 2 (200%). Conversely whites are over-represented by a factor of 25% and that's not taking into consideration the Hispanic population (approx. 17%).

Point being that if you start with a false basis you end up with a false conclusion.

Black males, the majority of black criminals, are only 6% of the population. So maybe the numbers need to be adjusted accordingly.

 

[HisArpy]

The Dems know it, but they don't admit knowing it. They cite raw numbers or percentages, whichever best supports their lies.

Lies. Damned lies. And Statistics.

 

[bellisarius]

In the year 2015 approx. 60 women were shot by police. Women are 50% of the population. Clearly we have a HUGE problem here.

 

[Kantarii]

The bottom line is the MSM can make numbers out to read however they need to read.

 

[bellisarius]

The bottom line is the MSM can make numbers out to read however they need to read.

And they'll continue to get away with it so long as a large portion of the public believes that apples and oranges are the same fruit.

 

[LesDesirable]

The more studies I read about police shootings, the less I know about whether a bias exists, whether crime rates affect shootings, and whether blacks are shot more often than whites, by officers who are black, white, or hispanic.

No matter how you sort the data, the big "Inconclusive" comes up at the end of the day.

In states which have more racial segregation, police action against blacks is more common. In areas with higher concentrations of black and hispanics, black and hispanic officers shoot more blacks and hispanics. This only proves that black and hispanic officers exist in areas with blacks and hispanics - not that no bias exists.

In some cities the police shooting rate is far higher than the crime rate. In others police shoot almost nobody.

Because not a single police officer involved shooting has ever ended up with the officer saying, "I shot him because he was Black, White, Hispanic, Asian". We can not say with certainty that it ever happens, or that it never happens.

The data can always give you the conclusion you wish to find.

 

[Adre]

The bottom line is Bellisarius can make numbers out to read however he needs them to read.

You said it.

 

[Hal9000_]

" Risk is highest for black men, who (at current levels of risk) face about a 1 in 1,000 chance of being killed by police over the life course. "

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

Rebuttal: "but black men commit more crimes per capita!"

"Research suggests that police practices, such as racial profiling, over-policing in areas populated by minorities and in-group bias may result in disproportionately high numbers of racial minorities among crime suspects.[82][83][84][85]

"Regardless of their views regarding causation, scholars acknowledge that some racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented in the arrest and victimization reports which are used to compile crime rate statistics.[126] There is, however, a great deal of debate regarding the causes of that disproportionality.

As noted above, scholars acknowledge that some racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans, are disproportionately represented in the arrest and victimization reports which are used to compile crime rate statistics in the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_..._States#Explanations_for_racial_discrepancies

 

[Boxlicker101]

The more studies I read about police shootings, the less I know about whether a bias exists, whether crime rates affect shootings, and whether blacks are shot more often than whites, by officers who are black, white, or hispanic.

No matter how you sort the data, the big "Inconclusive" comes up at the end of the day.

In states which have more racial segregation, police action against blacks is more common. In areas with higher concentrations of black and hispanics, black and hispanic officers shoot more blacks and hispanics. This only proves that black and hispanic officers exist in areas with blacks and hispanics - not that no bias exists.

In some cities the police shooting rate is far higher than the crime rate. In others police shoot almost nobody.

Because not a single police officer involved shooting has ever ended up with the officer saying, "I shot him because he was Black, White, Hispanic, Asian". We can not say with certainty that it ever happens, or that it never happens.

The data can always give you the conclusion you wish to find.

Actually, some Democrats who were cops have been known to say something like "I shot him because he was an uppity N----r," and then put on their robes and go to their KKK meeting, where they were acclaimed as protectors ow white womanhood.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

Actually, some Democrats who were cops have been known to say something like "I shot him because he was an uppity N----r," and then put on their robes and go to their KKK meeting, where they were acclaimed as protectors ow white womanhood.

Dude, I know you're like 136 or something but you really need to get in this century. The whole Democrats were the Klan thing is older than you. Ok maybe not that old but close.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

If I was a cop (which I'm not but it would be hilarious if I was) I wouldn't shoot dudes for being black. I'd probably shoot them for being stupid. Maybe for being an asshole to a cop cuz wow that's a dumb thing to do. But not for being black.

I knew a dude once ages ago who called the cops on a cop because he saw the cop use his lights to get thru a red light. I told him not to do it. I said man, you're gonna be really sorry if you do that.
Well he did it and he gave his real name.
No shit, he was in jail the next week over some petty bullshit. He shoulda been shot.

 

[bellisarius]

" Risk is highest for black men, who (at current levels of risk) face about a 1 in 1,000 chance of being killed by police over the life course. "

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

Rebuttal: "but black men commit more crimes per capita!"

"Research suggests that police practices, such as racial profiling, over-policing in areas populated by minorities and in-group bias may result in disproportionately high numbers of racial minorities among crime suspects.[82][83][84][85]

"Regardless of their views regarding causation, scholars acknowledge that some racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented in the arrest and victimization reports which are used to compile crime rate statistics.[126] There is, however, a great deal of debate regarding the causes of that disproportionality.

As noted above, scholars acknowledge that some racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans, are disproportionately represented in the arrest and victimization reports which are used to compile crime rate statistics in the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_..._States#Explanations_for_racial_discrepancies

More bull shit based on apples and oranges comparisons.

Go back to school dummy.

 

[philos]

Any numbers of how many cops killed and by who?

 

[Wrong Element]

Point being that if you start with a false basis you end up with a false conclusion.

Speaking of a false basis, the big assumption you make is that everyone killed by a police officer is someone who died in the process of committing a felony. This is not remotely the case.

 

[suurfer]

" Risk is highest for black men, who (at current levels of risk) face about a 1 in 1,000 chance of being killed by police over the life course. "

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

Rebuttal: "but black men commit more crimes per capita!"

"Research suggests that police practices, such as racial profiling, over-policing in areas populated by minorities and in-group bias may result in disproportionately high numbers of racial minorities among crime suspects.[82][83][84][85]

I, too saw those blood curling vids. on youtube, I'm sure that there Is a racism problem too, within some White members of the US Police force.
But you guys are being dishonest through omission, implying that it's a systemic 'White' problem:

White police officers are not more likely to fatally shoot minorities compared to black or Hispanic officers
"If fatal shootings of minority civilians are due to bias by white officers, we would expect that when white officers are involved in a fatal shooting, the person fatally shot would be more likely to be black or Hispanic.
This is not what we found. In contrast, when all the officers that fired at a civilian were black, a person was 2.0 times more likely to be black than when all the officers who fired were white. When all the officers that fired at a civilian were Hispanic, a person was 9.0 times more likely to be Hispanic than when all the officers who fired were white."

https://www.psypost.org/2019/07/whi...-compared-to-black-or-hispanic-officers-54090



ETA

What you guys are doing is dangerous, it puts a target on the back of White cops.

 

[suurfer]

The more studies I read about police shootings, the less I know about whether a bias exists, whether crime rates affect shootings, and whether blacks are shot more often than whites, by officers who are black, white, or hispanic.

No matter how you sort the data, the big "Inconclusive" comes up at the end of the day.

In states which have more racial segregation, police action against blacks is more common. In areas with higher concentrations of black and hispanics, black and hispanic officers shoot more blacks and hispanics. This only proves that black and hispanic officers exist in areas with blacks and hispanics - not that no bias exists.

In some cities the police shooting rate is far higher than the crime rate. In others police shoot almost nobody.

Because not a single police officer involved shooting has ever ended up with the officer saying, "I shot him because he was Black, White, Hispanic, Asian". We can not say with certainty that it ever happens, or that it never happens.

The data can always give you the conclusion you wish to find.

Well said, actually.


OFF TOPIC:

I also found this quite often on Lit. (my only avenue for discussion of social issues):

People challenge the other team for not producing credible evidence, so then they produce some statistics. To which the other team replies by producing Their statistics. Half of debates thus morph into a battle of statistics.

Evidence base and economics are so subjective, they are falsely equated to math and science. Interestingly, AngloSaxon countries figured that out and put Economics in the Dept. of Humanities, we still have them as independent subjects.