"There are many more whites killed by police, even though whites account for a similar absolute number of violent offenders. Thus, if the number of potentially violent encounters with police reflects the violent crime rates, then the raw statistics suggest that there is actually a slight anti-white bias in police applications of lethal force."
The problem with one off conclusions from data like these is that they never address the issue that a lot of crimes committed by white people are removed from the statistic of "violent crime." Either because they are not considered "violent crimes" or because said white people are socially protected and never are actually charged. For example, the biggest form of theft in the United States is not robberies, or even larcenies, but wage theft. Yet robberies and larcenies are policed far more often than wage-theft, which at most is enforced through fines or just totally disregarded in states with especially labor-unfriendly labor departments.
When was the last time you've seen police go arrest a boss for stealing from his employees, even if he might have stolen more than they could ever steal?
Yet whenever you see the mobs looting Walmart (one of the biggest thieves in this country), you'll have the reactionary right coming out cheering for the larcenists to be shot.
One might argue "wage theft isn't a violent crime", but if I personally were to attempt to get my wages that were stolen because the institutions of law enforcement don't enforce my right to have what I earned, then I almost would certainly be met with violence, even though just like the property owner or multinational corporation I am defending my ostensible "right to property." Furthermore, not only would I be met with violence from the thief, but also from the state on the thief's behalf.
Once you account for the selection bias that exists in the laws as well as the data-collection, it becomes much less clear that black persons are responsible for the same level of violence as white persons, in absolute terms. Sure this might be true of "violent crimes" but the category is quite arbitrary, indeed. This becomes even murkier when the U.S Department of Justice and other organizations pack drug crimes with violent crimes.
See, for example: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/drug-and-violent-crime
The problem with this is that drug laws are almost always and have almost always been enforced on the poor, who obviously are disproportionately BIPOC. And if drug crimes should be included with violent crimes, then I'd love to see wage-theft being coupled with them too. Oh wait, the violent actor in that scenario is mostly the state and its law-enforcement agents? Yeah, fat chance.
"It’s worth taking a moment to put these numbers in perspective:
-
18 unarmed blacks shot by police annually
-
26 unarmed whites shot by police annually
-
2500 (at least, but possibly well over 10,000) additional murders—mostly black—as a result of the de-policing prompted by BLM falsehoods
-
8000 blacks murdered by criminals annually
It would take roughly 140 years for police to shoot as many unarmed black people as have been murdered as a result of BLM falsehoods in just the past few years."
Right because de-policing was caused by "BLM falsehoods", and not the fact that during the large-scale labor shortage and precarities of the pandemic, police found better jobs that paid more and gave less stress. And note, not stress caused by BLM, but stress induced by the gang mentality that prevents the so-called "good cops" from policing the so-called "bad apples" in these forces, stress caused by low compensation, stress caused by being overworked, etc. Anyway, if BLM is the cause of de-policing what has largely become a federation of police-states responsible for the criminalization of the population of what is considered "the freest country in the world", then I am quite happy for BLM's existence. I don't see mass policing and mass criminalization as freedom. It is bizarre to me that some people do.
Last edited by sc94597 - on 21 February 2022
