Triumph of Trump: NFL kneeling

[Cow Poke]

It's very simple. If whites make up
- 62% of the population
- 50% of those people shot by police,
are they disproportionately more or disproportionately less likely to be shot by police?

While you're at it, you might want to explain how something that "can't be tested" is "bang-on accurate".

To compare persons who get shot by police by race to the general population is filled with errors.

You would really need to compare the numbers of persons who are shot with the numbers of persons actually encountered by police where a shooting is possible or likely.
Even in articles critical of police, it is admitted that "In 74 percent of all fatal police shootings, the individuals had already fired shots, brandished a gun or attacked a person with a weapon or their bare hands...”

Nobody seems concerned about the question - are blacks more likely to place themselves in situations where a shooting is likely?

[Sparko]

It's very simple. If whites make up
- 62% of the population
- 50% of those people shot by police,
are they disproportionately more or disproportionately less likely to be shot by police?

While you're at it, you might want to explain how something that "can't be tested" is "bang-on accurate".

If there are 100 random people shot by the police and 50% were white and 50% were a mixture of other races, black, asian, hispanic, etc. then whites would be more likely to be shot by police. You don't count the people who are not shot or have not been involved in an incident where they could be shot. You are trying to dilute the statistics to make your point.

[One Bad Pig]

If there are 100 random people shot by the police and 50% were white and 50% were a mixture of other races, black, asian, hispanic, etc. then whites would be more likely to be shot by police. You don't count the people who are not shot or are not criminals. You are trying to dilute the statistics to make your point.

Roy appears to be equally skilled at picking nits and cherries.

[Mountain Man]

It's very simple. If whites make up
- 62% of the population
- 50% of those people shot by police,
are they disproportionately more or disproportionately less likely to be shot by police?

While you're at it, you might want to explain how something that "can't be tested" is "bang-on accurate".

It's really quite simple, Roy: Statistically, blacks are more likely to have an encounter with the police, yet it's whites who are more likely to be shot.

For example, there's my follow-up post showing stats from New York City where 56% of armed suspects are black versus 15% who are white, yet 21% of suspects struck by police are white while only 43% are black (in other words, police are more likely to shoot an unarmed white suspect then they are an unarmed black suspect). Furthermore, 67% of suspects who shoot at police are black versus 0% who are white, yet a staggering 46% of suspects killed by police are white(!) while only 22% are black. And you want to tell me that whites aren't shot at and killed by police disproportionately more than blacks?

And then there are various studies showing that police officers are more likely to be hesitant about using deadly force when confronting a black suspect than they are when confronting a white suspect.

I really don't understand why you're not getting this other than your desperate desire to (finally) prove me wrong about something.

[Roy]

To compare persons who get shot by police by race to the general population is filled with errors.

If you're checking for police bias, certainly. If you're checking overall societal bias, not so much.

Nobody seems concerned about the question - are blacks more likely to place themselves in situations where a shooting is likely?

I think that is subsumed by a larger question: are blacks more likely to be in environments where such choices are made?

[Roy]

If there are 100 random people shot by the police and 50% were white and 50% were a mixture of other races, black, asian, hispanic, etc. then whites would be more likely to be shot by police. You don't count the people who are not shot or have not been involved in an incident where they could be shot. You are trying to dilute the statistics to make your point.

All your post indicates is that you don't know what 'disproportionately' means.

[Sparko]

All your post indicates is that you don't know what 'disproportionately' means.

all your post indicates is that you don't like being exposed for trying to manipulate the statistics.

[Cow Poke]

If there are 100 random people shot by the police and 50% were white and 50% were a mixture of other races, black, asian, hispanic, etc. then whites would be more likely to be shot by police. You don't count the people who are not shot or have not been involved in an incident where they could be shot. You are trying to dilute the statistics to make your point.

Another place where this "statistic" situation is stretched is where they use the figure of 6%, representing black MALES, but don't make the same distinction about whites in general. Like "whites make up 62% of the population", cited by Roy, and not breaking it down to half of those being male.

It's a case of "what numbers can I use to try to prove my point"?

[Cow Poke]

If you're checking for police bias, certainly. If you're checking overall societal bias, not so much.

You're usually much better than this, Roy.

I think that is subsumed by a larger question: are blacks more likely to be in environments where such choices are made?

And that goes back to -- should cops just stay out of black neighborhoods?

How bout, let's have blacks commit less crime, and therefore, have fewer encounters with police?

“Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We’ve got to face that. And we’ve got to do something about our moral standards,” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation in 1961. “We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves.”

[Cow Poke]

The amazing thing in all of this is the hypocrisy that it's only blacks killed by police that matter, even though FAR more blacks are killed by blacks than by police. And not all killings by police are unwarranted.

[Cow Poke]

...you're an idiot anyway.

Dear Jimmy,

Why can't you realize that every time you call somebody stupid, or an idiot, or dumb, it's like Pee-Wee Herman calling Hulk Hogan a sissyboy.

pee-wee.jpg

You can call others names, but with nearly every post you prove it's really YOU who's the dummy.

[rogue06]

The amazing thing in all of this is the hypocrisy that it's only blacks killed by police that matter, even though FAR more blacks are killed by blacks than by police.

Can't get any political mileage out of it. I guess some black lives matter more than others.

[Cow Poke]

Can't get any political mileage out of it. I guess some black lives matter more than others.

Get out of my head!

I was just thinking - BLM (unless they're killed by other B, then it's just L)

Which makes me hungry for a BLT.

[Mountain Man]

The amazing thing in all of this is the hypocrisy that it's only blacks killed by police that matter, even though FAR more blacks are killed by blacks than by police. And not all killings by police are unwarranted.

A young black male is far more likely to be killed by another black male than by a police officer.

[Mountain Man]

You're usually much better than this, Roy.

He usually is until I'm involved, and then suddenly he resorts to every dirty trick in the book in an attempt to prove me wrong about something. I'm not sure what I've done to trigger him, but this isn't the first time he's pulled this sort of thing.