| JuliusHackebeil said: I do not know about football, but I think I get the analogy: you are talking about a system that favours white people. Especially in light of my op (which is just one guys analysis), I would really appreciate if you could find something that would support this view. The thread could only benefit from it. To your calculations: 1) The implicit assumption here is that the amount of unarmed people killed will directly correlate with the total amount of people killed. But it could very well be the case, that when the number of blacks killed would reach the highs of whites killed, it would still stay at 18 unarmed blacks killed. We just do not know that. What we do know is that more whites are getting killed than blacks. And more unarmed whites are getting killed than unarmed blacks. Even though the amount of violent crime between the groups is similar (albeit a bit higher among blacks). For that reason it could just as easily be argued that the total amount of blacks killed is unexpectedly low. If it was as high as whites killed (457), the 18 now unarmed black people killed would be just shy of 4 %. But again, we just do not know if that number of unarmed black people killed would go up or not. Even though I can see how it is more likely to go up than to stay flat or go down, when the total amount of balcks killed would rise the highs of whites killed. 2) A 2 % difference does not strike me as all that significant and as a weird take-away in the face of much more striking information and much more startling differences and numbers: whites killed (457 - 65%) and blacks killed (243 - 35%) make 700 people (100%) killed by the police annually. But blacks commit 53 % of homocides and 60 % of robberies. There is a 25 % difference in number of people getting killed by the police between blacks and whites, even though blacks account for slightly more violent crime. 3) Every single person killed by the police (especially unarmed, but also otherwise) is a tragedy. But this is about perspecitve. The additional 2.500 (but perhaps even 10.000) people killed (mostly blacks) due to de-policing directly linked to BLM are also tragic. But the 2 % difference you pointed out is about 5 people (243*5,25 % (-percentage of unarmed whites killed) = 12,75 = 13 unarmed black people that could be killed without showing anti black bias. 13, but the number is actually 18 - so 5 people that "unjustly" got killed when compared to white unarmed people killed by the police. (Perhaps 6 if you round it down.) So, even though I do not agree with your method (point 1) let's say 5 unarmed black people killed annually is actually the anti-black-bias of the police and could not otherwise be explained. Should we really be "suspicious of the author's intentions" because of that? In the face of at least 2.500 additional homocides due to BLM? It is worth mentioning that Roland Fryer (black by the way), on whose numbers part of Kriegmans analysis is based, was very diligent: Roland Fryer (Harvard) was so shocked by his own findings that he fired pretty much his whole team, hired a new one and redid everything. Same results. This really goes a long way to make things more believable for me. For which reason did Zac Kriegman lose his gig? - That is explained in the very first paragraph of the analysis: |
1) There is no reason to discuss or try to model for future data. That just doesn't make sense.
2) But we aren't dealing with a 2% difference. The two statistics are 5.25% for the percentage of police killings of unarmed white individuals and 7.40% for the percentage of police killings of unarmed black individuals (based on your provided statistics). This data indicates that white victims of police shootings are roughly 30% less likely to be unarmed than black victims of police shootings. When comparing two percentages, they must be compared against each other to find percent difference, not simply subtracted from one another (ex. 2% is 100% larger than 1%).
Also, as previously noted, if you wish to use baseline criminality as the explanation for higher police killings, you need to prove the robustness of that argument. As the rate of police killings varies wildly seemingly independent of crime rates base on both location and time, I do not believe that is a particularly robust hypothesis.
Take for example, this data published in The Lancet:
This is just one part of this study, but it looks at how mortality by police killings have changed over time, further breaking the data down by race (data is standardized for age, to reduce the effect of changes/differences in population age).
Take the data from '00-'04 for the Non-Hispanic Black population for example. The violent crime rate at this time was roughly 490/100,000. Compare this to '10-'14, when the violent crime rate dropped to about 380/100,000. During this time period, we saw a roughly 23% drop in violent crime, but a 24% increase in police killings of black individuals.
3) The blame for the deaths in response to police violence should be placed on the police, not the people upset that the police are killing so many people. The easiest way to prevent a situation like we saw in 2020 is the police not killing people, not asking people to perhaps be okay with the state sanctioned murder.
