Just the fact's ma'am.

https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordp...ack-and-white/

Apparently posting this on social media is viewed as "racist" however facts matter. The reality is that disparities in how often a group of folks do crime has a direct impact on policing. Just like more men than women are arrested for violent crimes, because men commit more crimes.

I'm not sure why anyone would be opposed to learning more truth about a situation. In what way could the truth ever harm people?

Your facts are irrelevant.

Quote:

---

If you are getting arrested by the police for a violent crime, your chances of being killed by the cops are GREATER if you are white then if you are black.

---

We see you.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/...al-disparities

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vox

Black people are much more likely to be shot by police than their white peers.

An analysis of the available FBI data by Dara Lind for Vox found that US police kill black people at disproportionate rates: Black people accounted for 31 percent of police killing victims in 2012, even though they made up just 13 percent of the US population. Although the data is incomplete because it’s based on voluntary reports from police agencies around the country, it highlights the vast disparities in how police use force.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chor...0by%20race.png

The disparities appear to be even starker for unarmed suspects, according to an analysis of 2015 police killings by the Guardian. Racial minorities made up about 37.4 percent of the general population in the US and 46.6 percent of armed and unarmed victims, but they made up 62.7 percent of unarmed people killed by police.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/unm7..._victims.0.png

---

Lewk, have you heard of selection bias? For instance, we know blacks and whites are equally like to use weed, but the former are several times more likely to be arrested for posession. Have you considered the possibility that African Americans are far more likely to be charged with certain crimes because there are far more police officers in their neighborhoods, because the police are far more likely to stop them (for the same visible offense), and people are far more likely to call the cops on them?

Steely - do you not understand population doesn't matter? What matters is the number of crimes being done by the different groups, that increases the interactions. In fact white folks are more likely than black folks *per encounter* to be shot.

Loki - No shit there are more police in those neighborhoods, there are far more 911 calls regarding robbery, assault and murder in those places. That's the point.

Oh hey guys look at the riots but don't look at the consequences...

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/6/...-may-29-june-1

"Officers responding to a ShotSpotter alert for gunfire found the 18-year-old shot in the right side of her head at 10:51 p.m. in the 4200 block of West Van Buren Street, according to Chicago police. She was pronounced dead at the scene."

Lewk, white people don't encounter the police unless they do something really bad. Black people encounter the police for walking in their own neighborhood. That statistic isn't as impressive as you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/6/...-may-29-june-1

"Officers responding to a ShotSpotter alert for gunfire found the 18-year-old shot in the right side of her head at 10:51 p.m. in the 4200 block of West Van Buren Street, according to Chicago police. She was pronounced dead at the scene."

---

Another death I celebrate. Because you've spent 20 years trying to teach us to cheer for deaths, no matter how needless they were, that happen in a context which supports one's political and cultural ideologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Steely - do you not understand population doesn't matter? What matters is the number of crimes being done by the different groups, that increases the interactions. In fact white folks are more likely than black folks *per encounter* to be shot.

---

This only true if you use data specifically designed to get the result you're looking for, specifically looking at only arrests for violent crime vs chances of being fatally shot by police, as if black people and, indeed, everyone else can't be killed by police in other interactions, such as (for example) the very incident that triggered the current wave of protests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [URL]https://replicationindex.com/2019/10/20/hidden-evidence-in-racial-bias-research-by-cesario-and-johnson/[/URL]

The Bureau of Justice Statistics has collected data from over 100,000 US citizens about encounters with police. The Police-Public Contact Survey has been conducted in 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2015. Tregle et al. (2019) used the freely available data to create three benchmarks for fatal police shootings.
https://replicationindex.files.wordp...0/image-14.png

First, they estimated that there are 2.5 million police-initiated contacts a year with Black civilians and 16.6 million police initiated contacts a year with White civilians. This is a ratio of 1:6.5, which is slightly bigger than the ratio for Black and White citizens (39.9 million vs. 232.9 million), 1:5.8. Thus, there is no evidence that Black civilians have disproportionally more encounters with police than White civilans. Using either one of these benchmarks, still suggests that Black civilians are more likely to be shot than White civilians by a ratio of 3:1.


One reason for the proportionally higher rate of police encounters for White civilians is that they drive more than Blacks, which leads to more traffic stops for Whites. Here the ratio is 2.0 million to 14.0 million or 1:7. The picture changes for street stops, with a ratio of 0.5 million to 2.6 million, 1:4.9. But even this ratio still implies that Black civilians are at a greater risk to be fatally shot during a street stop with an odds-ratio of 2.55:1.


It is telling that Cesario and Johnson are aware of an article that came to opposite conclusions based on a different approach to estimate police encounters and do not mention this finding in their article. Apparently it was more convenient to ignore this inconsistent evidence to tell their readers that data consistently show no anti-Black bias. While readers who are not scientists may be shocked by this omission of inconvenient evidence, scientists are all to familiar with this deceptive practice of cherry picking that is eroding trust in science.

---

What is also unclear to me is, even if you were somehow able to prove the point you're trying to make, why you think that's a reason shouldn't people shouldn't be out protesting police violence? Did you think everyone was going to be all "Well, yes, the police are overly militarised, aggressive with the public and overly violent, poorly trained and unaccountable but at least they're not racist so everything's fine".

Reality is, they're all of the above and *also* racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Another death I celebrate. Because you've spent 20 years trying to teach us to cheer for deaths, no matter how needless they were, that happen in a context which supports one's political and cultural ideologies.

---

I've spent 20 years teaching you to celebrate murderers, rapists and thieves who die via self defense from their would be victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

This only true if you use data specifically designed to get the result you're looking for, specifically looking at only arrests for violent crime vs chances of being fatally shot by police, as if black people and, indeed, everyone else can't be killed by police in other interactions, such as (for example) the very incident that triggered the current wave of protests.



What is also unclear to me is, even if you were somehow able to prove the point you're trying to make, why you think that's a reason shouldn't people shouldn't be out protesting police violence? Did you think everyone was going to be all "Well, yes, the police are overly militarised, aggressive with the public and overly violent, poorly trained and unaccountable but at least they're not racist so everything's fine".

Reality is, they're all of the above and *also* racist.

---

I have absolutely 0 problems lawful peaceful protests. Not say I won't call a protester an idiot if their cause is silly but they have a right to it. It makes sense to me for the people of Minneapolis to protest their Democrat Mayor and Democrat Governor over the police brutality death by one of their government workers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I have absolutely 0 problems lawful peaceful protests. Not say I won't call a protester an idiot if their cause is silly but they have a right to it. It makes sense to me for the people of Minneapolis to protest their Democrat Mayor and Democrat Governor over the police brutality death by one of their government workers.

---

Er, you'll need to define lawful peaceful protests for us. Laying down in the street or sidewalk is certainly peaceful, but I don't think it has your support. As far as I can tell you are good with people walking on sidewalks with signs, as long as they don't inconvenience anyone around them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Er, you'll need to define lawful peaceful protests for us. Laying down in the street or sidewalk is certainly peaceful, but I don't think it has your support. As far as I can tell you are good with people walking on sidewalks with signs, as long as they don't inconvenience anyone around them.

---

Basically, yes. Your right to assemble does not allow you to unreasonably impede others. It does not allow you to block access to a store or hospital or abortion clinic or school etc. And of course there are varying degrees of civil disobedience in play too. I expect (regardless of your cause) the police to arrest you if you violate certain laws like blocking access. It may be morally acceptable to do so to make a statement as long as it is non-violent. But it isn't OK to use violence to get your way and certainly certainly is never acceptable to attack a third party as part of a protest. If you dislike the government I can understand (but not condone) violence against the government (save in the case of true revolution, if legitimate cause exists) but I cannot understand the pretzel logic of looting a business, attacking business owners or committing arson of commercial property to protest the government. That's... insane.
But i

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I've spent 20 years teaching you to celebrate murderers, rapists and thieves who die via self defense from their would be victims.

---

You've spent 20 years celebrating murderers who made certain to kill any 1st-hand witnesses who could dispute their account of events.

Imagine being dumb enough to brag about being a sociopathic dullard in your mid teens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I've spent 20 years teaching you to celebrate murderers, rapists and thieves who die via self defense from their would be victims.

---

Then you suck as a "teacher". Not just because you celebrate KILLING, and glorify vigilantism which allows shop keepers *or cops* to KILL someone for stealing toothpaste---or for walking/jogging/driving/shopping while black---but because the only thing you've taught us is that you're a racist, sexist, closed-minded, authoritarian troll. :donkey: