The following is in many parts a post I made in another thread (5000 $ anti racist dinner). But after some consideration I thought it would deserve its on thread.
I came across supremely interesting findings of a data analyst who initially was hired by Thomson Reuters to provide data on BLM and racial police bias. His name is Zac Kriegman. And his findings were so out of line with what could be published, that they wanted him to change them. He did not back down however and was fired subsequently. He did post his findings online though and here they are:
Some interesting stuff from it:
"in 2020 there were 457 whites shot and killed by police, compared to 243 blacks. Of those, 24 of the whites killed were unarmed compared to 18 blacks."
"African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.”
"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."
"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."
These assertions are quite damning to say the least, to both BLM and the media at large. I hope Zac Kriegman will not be a victim of cancel culture. He did, as mentioned above, already lose his gig with Reuters however. It might be important to point out, that Kriegman just analysed data. Some of this data is also based on Roland Fryers findings - who is quite competent as far as I can tell.
I sure thought that if there is a bias in the police force in the USA, it would be against blacks. But I honestly had no data to proof, or even somewhat support this opinion. It is funny how we just put trust in information without requireing any proof. That is actually one of three questions of this thread:
1) How do you decide what information is trustworthy?
2) How does a certain zeitgeist, or how do we shape what can and cannot be published? Is the media just feeding us what we want to hear?
3) What is your opinion on BLM and do you think the information in this op is trustworthy?
Please try to be sensitive and understanding of others viewpoints. Healthy disagreement is even encouraged, but please be polite. Ideally I would like some other posters to link to different data, or interpretation of data so that we can have a multiplicity of viewpoints.