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:

Police and BLM analysis

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. 

1) If I haven't verified it, it's not trustworthy.
2) What's a zeitgeist?
3a) My opinion on BLM is not terribly positive.
3b) No, I don't think it's trustworthy.

Thanks for posting this. The rhetoric fed to us by our media and politicians that America and police are overwhelmingly racist is often blatantly exaggerated, sensationalized, and even falsified. They’re trying to divide us, bc the polarization of America is to their benefit. Republicans and Fox News definitely do it, too, but from my view, trying to divide us based on race is egregious and reprehensible.

Are there race-related issues in the US? Absolutely. But it seems to me like there’s never any real attempt to truly fix these issues. And when you think about it, why would Democrats want to fix the issues? Then, they would lose a major advantage in elections. All of our largest, highest crime cities have been run by Democrat governors for how many years? And what real changes and improvements have we seen? It appears clear as day to me that Democrats and liberal media cheaply use the Black and Hispanic population for the sake of votes. Anyone with open eyes and mind and a lack of bias can see the pandering they do. It’s identical to what Republicans do to pander to Christians. It’s all about votes, money, and control. The sooner we all see the lies and deception of our politicians and media, the sooner we can improve as a country.

Baseline criminality has always been a poor explanation for police shootings, as the density of shootings does not strongly correlate with the density of crime. That is to say, more crime does not necessarily mean more shootings. As such, saying "But x group commits more crime" fails at providing a strong causal explanation, as it fails to establish even a strong correlation.

The most important thing when it comes to data is the question of "What are you going to do with it?" because often, the data doesn't make the argument for itself. As such, you need to be very careful about how you use the data. If you are looking at criminality data and saying "See, this works as an explanation for the disproportionate number of African Americans killed by police," you are using the data to say something that it does not inherently say. As such, you must then ask if the data alone is sufficient to support the hypothesis. In this case, other data indicates that this is not a valid alternate explanation.

One of the most important things that bad actors will do when making an argument, is use a kernel of truth to tell a lie. The most important thing is not proving the voracity of that kernel of truth, it is asking whether it is capable of making the argument that is being made.

Further, even if racial bias was a poor fit to explain the police shooting data, that would not in any way imply that police reform is not important or necessary, or that the current levels of police violence are warranted. 

1) But how do we verify it? If you have not observed it with your own eyes, you have to put your trust in someone. Perhaps if multiple outlets say the same thing, it becomes more trustworthy. But they could all say the same nonsense aswell.

2) I would say it is a current climate of ideas. What is en vogue to think. Perhaps you could say a certain mentality of a specific time and place.

3)a) Why is that if I may ask?

3)b) Why would you think it is not trustworthy? I would really appreciate different data on the matter.

Even if you want to take out the race aspect of it, the number of people killed by police every year is unacceptable. While there are 5 countries with more average police killings than the USA, the number of peopled killed running away, holding a knife or it looked like they might have been grabbing for something is unacceptable. America can and should be better in a lot of things, and we just don't

1) I don't have to put my trust in anyone. I could and sometimes do but I don't always especially when it comes to statistics.

3a) They don't always strike me as an honest bunch. Their handling of the Ma'Khia Bryant case for example was telling: they're not above misleading readers.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/makhia-bryant/?fbclid=IwAR14msoVQP5h0uxu46DCsov6XVAA6mnriSDHO-_RKB4KwLfY6Lw2KpA1asU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mbBvNTlpMg&ab_channel=NBCNews

3b) I have not verified it hence I find it untrustworthy. And even if I verified the data was accurate, what am I supposed to do with it? It tells me very little.

better video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8GEJkMjtEA&ab_channel=ABCNews

i do think there is a police bias against blacks but that is only because of historical reputation of the African community.

There is always a bias in everything but it arises from some truth.

1) From Experience,After experiencing the lies and the consequences of liberal policies.The trust in liberal media and liberal worldview is evaporating across the world.

2) Usually money & power dictates what is published.What should be published is the truth not what should be the truth aka Fake Moral Policing by the left.

3) It is confirmed by history.Black Lives Matter is just a front where Blacks would love to become the new ruling class.

Also all these Silicon Valley and Wall Street Liberal Elite have been exposed of financing BLM.

Because you're crossing lines now, I'd like a detailed explanation of this history you speak of.

ok,my bad.I will be more vigilant from now on.

About the History,Culture for different Religions,Ethnic groups,Racial groups differ in a country and around the world.You can see this in different Social norms,Religion,Wealth,etc.

Because of the Income Gaps between the White and Black Community and also divorces and Fatherless upbringing of children in the Black Community,the Children are not brought up with the right values which leads to drugs,gangs,unemployment,violence,etc - This would happen to any community going through these afflictions.Which is what builds the reputation of the community.The Stereotype reinforces itself and follows a negative loop

A similar situation can be seen in the middle east where,Terrorism leads to even more terrorism.Which built the reputation of the Middle East as an unsafe place.

Then I'd also like for you to explain how the African American community "would love to become the ruling class"? Based on what?

Well in Sociology relating to a multi-religious,multi-ethnic,multi-racial society.

There is always a fight between groups as to who will dominate.No multl-cultural society ever is EQUAL in history.there is always one group dominating the other group.

In America,White Europeans are the Ruling Class no matter what anybody says that it is an equal country for everyone.

According to Sociology,there can never be equality.

So in America,it can be either White dominating Hispanics and blacks,or the other way around.