JWeinCom said:
And this is what's frustrating... because you're still jumping to conclusions without the proper justification. *it's not arrested, offender = found guilty.
Offender can be used to describe those convicted. It can also be used to describe a defendant in a criminal case in legal proceedings. It may have a specific usage in law enforcement. Whatever the case may be, it's pretty clear that in this case it is not referring to convictions. The FBI has a separate table that lists arrests. There were 8,508 arrests for murder AND non-negligent manslaughter. If we eliminate the unknown cases, then there are about 11,000 "offenders". I can't see how there would be 8,500 people arrested and 11,000 people found guilty (plus more still in trial), especially since the arrests also include crimes beyond murder (it seems like the murder table might as well, idk). It just doesn't make sense. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43 The data I gave before was in fact based on arrests. You are saying things that are not true. You are spreading misinformation. Stop doing that. once again, the 1/3 of the unknowns is unresolved/still in trial cases and since the murder's race is largely independent of whether the crime is unresolved or still in trial, that means that the data closely follows the 10,000 sample we have already
Where does it say that on the site? Anywhere? In fact, the FBI provides a figure for what percentages of crimes are "cleared" meaning a person has been arrested, charged, and the case has been turned over to the police (not necessarily ending in convictions). The clearance rate for murder as of 2015 was 61.5%. This means that at least 38.5% were unresolved, and it's almost certainly not the case that all of the resolved cases already have concluded criminal proceedings and ended in convictions. So, the number of unknown crimes 31.2% can not mean the amount that are unresolved. Because the FBI tells you how many were unresolved. Which means we still don't know why the unknown data is unknown. You just... kind of decided what unknown meant in this chart. That's what we call making shit up. Stop doing that. ( I agree with your previous points about black people having less access to good lawyers or being wrongly convicted etc but in no way it is enough to change the overall picture)
How can you possibly agree with me on something I don't believe? At no point did I say that black have less access to good lawyers or are wrongfully convicted more frequently than white people. I said it's a potential explanation that's worth looking into. But I have NOT done sufficient research to claim this IS the case, and so I haven't claimed it. It's also quite possible that white murderers tend to be poor and therefore would have similar access to legal help. And not only did you conclude that black people have less access to good lawyers, but you also somehow concluded that this is not enough to significantly impact the data. All of this without one ounce of research. Amazing. deny all you want, the numbers are real and they are out there, anyone can read them on the internet and make sensible conclusions, either on wikipedia, google images or FBI it doesn't matter O_o... Yes, yes it does matter. Sources matter. You still despite everything are insisting google images is a reliable source. Basically any chart you find on the internet is true.
Unless 2014 was veeeeeeeery different from 2015 and black people were just going haam on whitey, at least one of these graphs found on google images are total bullshit. And here is what wikipedia says about wikipedia. "Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself." Wikipedia doesn't even think you can come to sensible conclusions based on wikipedia. They even warn you especially not to use wikipedia for data on contentious topics... you know like this one? if you are not biased to the bone, despite your exaggerating, brutal approach, and you honestly believe that the figures are garbage, then our real difference is statistical knowledge and experience with reading and analyzing graphs/tables/figures Someone who believes wikipedia and google image is a reliable source is claiming to have superior statistical knowledge. That is simply fucking astounding. Edit: Not going to address everything, and probably not going to reply further. If at this point you still think wikipedia and google images are a good source of data, idk what more I can say. |
I do know that, and some of it is common sense, such as the unknown race for unknown murderer
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/offender
2031 more offenders than arrests does not make the offenders data wrong, it could be due to 'murder and suicide', evidence of guilt but the murderer(s) disappeared or fled the country, murders in prisons...
why do you have to make things so complicated? I agreed with your point simply being a factor that affects the data we have, I have seen data supporting it before but I will not waste time posting sources on 'everybody knows' things such as white people being on average more wealthy
do I have to provide a source for every single sentence now? even common sense things? wouldn't that make the discussion impossible and too complicated/time consuming? if you disagree with a statement you can find your data to prove me wrong, asking me to research every single thing is just insane, and obviously you don't ask every single person in here for sources on every sentence, hence your bias
Trump's figure lol :P
I would never post something like that without verifying, cause most of all the 'whites killed by blacks' doesn't make sense, even if it's adjusted to population it should have said so, that is what you can call misinformation yes, by all means, or misleading at best, no one seems to know exactly where that came from btw
https://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-retweets-bogus-crime-graphic/
it is rather sad how someone with Trump's careless attitude is president of the US, but sometimes I understand how it happened, people of extreme bias who want to see racism, they will see racism no matter what, and those who want to present others as bad people will find reasons to do so, but the real protest is done silently in the gallop box
I agree with some of them https://www.facebook.com/201956993160690/videos/292591268796378
racism does exist, but I don't think it's as bad as the media want it to be, even worse when it results in riots, violence, anarchy and more deaths - many being black people https://www.foxnews.com/us/deadly-unrest-people-have-died-amid-george-floyd-protests-across-us
the main topic should have been police brutality and not 'blacklivesmatter', cause the US police is killing people of all races, a lot of them
Someone who believes wikipedia and google image is a reliable source is claiming to have superior statistical knowledge. That is simply fucking astounding.
Edit: Not going to address everything, and probably not going to reply further. If at this point you still think wikipedia and google images are a good source of data, idk what more I can say.
WHAT!?
I understand what your skepticism, but google images and wikipedia are not sources of data but rather mediums of finding data fast, the actual data source is found under the figures or in links on wikipedia (U.S. Census Bureau, Pew Research Centre ....) which of course is always a good idea to check the actual data source like you posted the FBI links
that is true for the every medium that presents data online, like youtube, the medium through which one found the data does not mark the data as 'misinformation' or 'garbage' as you suggest, that is complete non-sense
your problem is not how I found the figures, but that they do not serve your views and that you cannot find counter data to prove them wrong
don't mind my username, that was more than 10 years ago, I'm a different person now, amazing how people change ^_^
