Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Blacks are outnumbered by Whites 5 to 1. Of course there are going to be fewer Blacks shot by the police. 200 million Whites vs 40 million Blacks. Whites are shot to death by the police at a rate of 0.2285 per 100,000. Blacks are shot to death by the police at a rate of 0.5275 per 100,000. Blacks are killed by the police at a higher rate.
I notice you will use crime rate when it comes to Blacks committing crimes, but you use raw numbers when it comes to stuff like Blacks being victimized.
This is an excellent point, and people on either side of the misuse of statistics should jump on board the logical consistency train.
If you want to use per capita rates for victimization at the hands of police, then consistency demands basing all your arguments on per capita rates for all your socioeconomic rants. Welfare, crimes committed, etc. On per capita measures, things aren't so good for black people. On virtually every socioeconomic measure, they have the highest per capita rates.
On the other hand, if you want to use raw totals for victimization at the hands of police, then consistency demands basing all your arguments on raw totals for all your socioeconomic rants. Welfare, crimes committed, etc. On raw total measures, things aren't so good for white people. On virtually every socioeconomic measure, they have the highest raw totals.
Shifting your methodology midstream is intentionally misleading and dishonest.
On the specific point of being killed by police, the best measure is not just dividing by race, but deaths as a percentage of police interactions overall, and then following that measure with other questions. When controlled as a percentage of actual interactions, blacks have a lower rate of being harmed/killed by police than whites.
Given the other per capita rates being what they are, and accepting this as true, then one thing jumps right off the page, and that is simply that per capita, nobody has higher rates of police interactions than black people. The "as a percent of interactions" actually magnifies that concept. So the follow up questions become something for people on either side of the social justice/awareness aisle, which is why the hec are black people interacting with police so much more often than anyone else?
Generically, yeah, police are agents of tyranny and need to stop killing people, but that's asking government to stop being corrupt and tyrannical, so go figure those odds. In the meantime, the socioeconomic questions are still out there - why are black people so much more likely to interact with police generally? Is it profiling, is it racism, is it legitimate, what?
This is an excellent point, and people on either side of the misuse of statistics should jump on board the logical consistency train.
If you want to use per capita rates for victimization at the hands of police, then consistency demands basing all your arguments on per capita rates for all your socioeconomic rants. Welfare, crimes committed, etc. On per capita measures, things aren't so good for black people. On virtually every socioeconomic measure, they have the highest per capita rates.
On the other hand, if you want to use raw totals for victimization at the hands of police, then consistency demands basing all your arguments on raw totals for all your socioeconomic rants. Welfare, crimes committed, etc. On raw total measures, things aren't so good for white people. On virtually every socioeconomic measure, they have the highest raw totals.
Shifting your methodology midstream is intentionally misleading and dishonest.
On the specific point of being killed by police, the best measure is not just dividing by race, but deaths as a percentage of police interactions overall, and then following that measure with other questions. When controlled as a percentage of actual interactions, blacks have a lower rate of being harmed/killed by police than whites.
Given the other per capita rates being what they are, and accepting this as true, then one thing jumps right off the page, and that is simply that per capita, nobody has higher rates of police interactions than black people. The "as a percent of interactions" actually magnifies that concept. So the follow up questions become something for people on either side of the social justice/awareness aisle, which is why the hec are black people interacting with police so much more often than anyone else?
Generically, yeah, police are agents of tyranny and need to stop killing people, but that's asking government to stop being corrupt and tyrannical, so go figure those odds. In the meantime, the socioeconomic questions are still out there - why are black people so much more likely to interact with police generally? Is it profiling, is it racism, is it legitimate, what?
Consistency is important. Now, there are times when raw numbers are necessary, such as with money. However, when it comes to issues like welfare and crime, per capita is a good measure. I was pointing out the inconsistency because it would help to point out why some persons use the metrics that they do. I notice that per capita is only used when Blacks are using welfare and committing crimes. However, when it comes to White persons getting shot by the police, NOW raw numbers are used. It is more than just intellectual dishonest. The question is WHY the need for such dishonesty?
When it comes to over all police interactions, there are still alot of variables. Who is more likely to be harmed when inflicting violence on an officer? Who is more likely to be subjected to violence without offering deadly force?
It could be that alot of interactions between blacks and the police do not end violently. But as you've said, Blacks tend to interact with the police much more than other groups. The question is this: Why are Blacks interacting with the police much more?
One could say crime is a factor. And if you commit a crime, expect to deal with a police officer. If you're the victim of a crime (and one flip side of black crime, blacks have high rates of being victimized), you will deal with the police as a victim. On the other hand, what are the chances of a law abiding Black person interacting with a police officer vs a White law abiding person? And why? From my own experiences, I've dealt with persons who felt like I didn't belong or I "scared" them because I seemed upset. My father has dealt with being pulled over a few times without any noticeable traffic violations. I was in the car with him for one of those times. One theory I have is that Blacks are more likely to have more interaction with the police on the occasion that they are not committing any crimes.
396 blacks who were unarmed were killed by the police in 2018.
512 white (non-hispanic) who were unarmed were killed by police in 2018.
The ratio of white/black in the US is 6:1. The ratio above is 1.25 : 1.
This is why there are protests, the police have a higher propensity for killing unarmed black people than whites, almost 5x more.
The ratio of whites to black is more like 4.5:1, but the relevant figure is not the number of blacks and whites. It's the threat that blacks and whites pose to cops because that's what is supposed to justify the shootings. Cops "feel" threatened.
How many cops were killed by blacks? How many by whites? Seeing as how blacks commit murder at six times the rate that whites do in this country, I'm confident you'll find that the number of whites shot by police is disproportionately HIGH.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,185 posts, read 13,469,799 times
Reputation: 19508
One thing that puzzles me, is why I keep hearing about Black Lives Matter and lots of women complaining about their lot in life, however very little is being said about White Men's Lives Mattering, as it's white middle age men who are tragically killing themselves, with suicides rates rocketing and not black men or asians. Furthermore the opoid crisis has caused significant problems in relation to the white community.
All lives matter, and it's time to stop attacking white men, and time to start actually helping them.
Perhaps white men should start protesting about their lives, and their unhappiness and rising suicide rates.
One thing that puzzles me, is why I keep hearing about Black Lives Matter and lots of women complaining about their lot in life, however very little is being said about White Men's Lives Mattering, as it's white middle age men who are tragically killing themselves, with suicides rates rocketing and not black men or asians. Furthermore the opoid crisis has caused significant problems in relation to the white community.
All lives matter, and it's time to stop attacking white men, and time to start actually helping them.
Perhaps white men should start protesting about their lives, and their unhappiness and rising suicide rates.
Black men are murdering each other at very high rates. No one cares about that unless it's being used to complain about Black people. And speaking of suicides, no one is talking about the rising suicide rate of Black children: https://www.usnews.com/news/healthie...black-children
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,185 posts, read 13,469,799 times
Reputation: 19508
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
Black men are murdering each other at very high rates. No one cares about that unless it's being used to complain about Black people. And speaking of suicides, no one is talking about the rising suicide rate of Black children: https://www.usnews.com/news/healthie...black-children
Suicides among white middle aged males are many times more common that among children and adolescents of any race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Economist
Nearly 45,000 Americans took their own lives in 2016, and suicide is an important part of the rising number of “deaths of despair” (also including drug overdoses and liver disease) described by Anne Case and Angus Deaton, economists.
These causes of death have increased the overall mortality rate amongst white men without a college degree. Both absolute levels of suicide per 100,000 people and recent increases are particularly high amongst those aged between 45 and 64.
The male suicide rate remains almost four times that for women, and suicide rates for whites are higher and have been climbing faster than those for other racial and ethnic groups.
Suicides among white middle aged males are many times more common that among adolescents of any race.
The reasons for suicide rates among middle age White males are nowhere near the same as the rate of death among Black males in this country. The Black man in America has the lowest life expectancy of anyone in the USA. And it mentions that suicides are rising in rural areas, where people are more isolated and alone.
If you want to start a thread about White males committing suicide, do that. But do not come here to try and deflect from the topic of this thread. You look stupid doing so and the only reason you're doing it is to gaslight.
No, I'm looking at the odds, and you're looking at the total number of events.
Actually, I think MP has a point. You are not looking at the odds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
