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.
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.
Here is a better question. How many of those situations were actually threatening situations? There is a difference between feeling threatened and actually being threatened.
Why I think more Whites are not protesting against police shootings? I think it has more to do with less of a siege mentality when it comes to police shootings. What I don't see is that sense of "we're being targeted and dealing with systematic racism". Blacks have long dealt with systematic racism and police brutality. There is a sense that things haven't changed all that much.
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?
Absolutely, and I concur. The answer is simple - use the statistics in ways that favor your argument, even if it means a wildly inconsistent methodology. Rates and raw totals tell different stories, but if you jump around inconsistently, you can tailor a purely negative or positive story and "back it up with statistics."
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
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?
Absolutely. The per capita data, if we stick to per capita, means that police interact with black people at a much higher rate than anyone else. I couldn't hope to offer a concrete proposal to why, but I would suspect that a combination of factors such as profiling, geography (like high crime neighborhoods generally having more police interactions than lower crime, and black people having a higher population density in high crime areas than whites, etc), racism, economics, actual crime rates, etc.
That is indeed the question(s) to be asked - why the vastly higher rates of police interactions? Methinks neither side of the arguments wants too honest a look at that, because it will uncover ugly truths that neither side really feels like examining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
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.
I agree with all of that. One reason it is easier for me to accept the totally unwarranted police interaction happening more than non-black people like to admit is because in my reckless youth, I was an OG anarchy-punker, with the requisite hair, clothing, etc that broadcast my anti-authority cred from a pretty good distance. And I got hassled by police for no reason all the time. One time, I was dressed most seriously scroungy and was walking my sister's dog in her very affluent neighborhood. Not only did the police stop me, they called the stop in, made me break out ID, and I was frisked for what I guess was drugs or weapons? All because I was wearing ripped up jeans and a leather jacket while walking a dog.
And my empathy for black people in that same scenario is magnified because I know I can put on nicer clothes and wear a more affluent neighborhood friendly jacket. Not much black people can do about their skin. Point is...cops hassle people for no freaking reason all the time, and I have numerous personal experiences that back that up. Shave a mohawk, wear bummy clothes and walk down he street smoking a cigarette...it's like a duck call for random cop foolishness. That said, I also did time as a cop, albeit in the military, and not every stop in totally unwarranted. Sometimes, it is simply following proper procedure.
This topic has no simple answer really, and it's why I say there are a lot of truths on all sides that probably cause discomfort all the way around, so nobody really goes after the answers and we just shrug our shoulders and accept a wildly higher rate of police interactions with black people as the cost of doing statist/collectivist business. It really does seem like nobody wants to dig much deeper than that.
Interestingly enough, you'll be told by the SJW mob that police don't kill unarmed whites and get away with it Like other stories peddled by the left, however, this is a provable lie. To add, I'll just write that the fact that someone is unarmed does not mean that the police used excessive force in handling a situation that led to death. More needs to be known in every case.
Why I think more Whites are not protesting against police shootings? I think it has more to do with less of a siege mentality when it comes to police shootings. What I don't see is that sense of "we're being targeted and dealing with systematic racism". Blacks have long dealt with systematic racism and police brutality. There is a sense that things haven't changed all that much.
A sense of "somehow or another, that's not going to happen to me. It happened to him, and even though he was just like me, it's not going to happen to me."
Why I think more Whites are not protesting against police shootings? I think it has more to do with less of a siege mentality when it comes to police shootings. What I don't see is that sense of "we're being targeted and dealing with systematic racism". Blacks have long dealt with systematic racism and police brutality. There is a sense that things haven't changed all that much.
There is no systematic racism and you cannot prove it. That's just a crutch the lefties use to cover for the failure of minorities to succeed which is caused by the handouts the left uses to buy votes.
Absolutely, and I concur. The answer is simple - use the statistics in ways that favor your argument, even if it means a wildly inconsistent methodology. Rates and raw totals tell different stories, but if you jump around inconsistently, you can tailor a purely negative or positive story and "back it up with statistics."
Absolutely. The per capita data, if we stick to per capita, means that police interact with black people at a much higher rate than anyone else. I couldn't hope to offer a concrete proposal to why, but I would suspect that a combination of factors such as profiling, geography (like high crime neighborhoods generally having more police interactions than lower crime, and black people having a higher population density in high crime areas than whites, etc), racism, economics, actual crime rates, etc.
That is indeed the question(s) to be asked - why the vastly higher rates of police interactions? Methinks neither side of the arguments wants too honest a look at that, because it will uncover ugly truths that neither side really feels like examining.
I agree with all of that. One reason it is easier for me to accept the totally unwarranted police interaction happening more than non-black people like to admit is because in my reckless youth, I was an OG anarchy-punker, with the requisite hair, clothing, etc that broadcast my anti-authority cred from a pretty good distance. And I got hassled by police for no reason all the time. One time, I was dressed most seriously scroungy and was walking my sister's dog in her very affluent neighborhood. Not only did the police stop me, they called the stop in, made me break out ID, and I was frisked for what I guess was drugs or weapons? All because I was wearing ripped up jeans and a leather jacket while walking a dog.
And my empathy for black people in that same scenario is magnified because I know I can put on nicer clothes and wear a more affluent neighborhood friendly jacket. Not much black people can do about their skin. Point is...cops hassle people for no freaking reason all the time, and I have numerous personal experiences that back that up. Shave a mohawk, wear bummy clothes and walk down he street smoking a cigarette...it's like a duck call for random cop foolishness. That said, I also did time as a cop, albeit in the military, and not every stop in totally unwarranted. Sometimes, it is simply following proper procedure.
This topic has no simple answer really, and it's why I say there are a lot of truths on all sides that probably cause discomfort all the way around, so nobody really goes after the answers and we just shrug our shoulders and accept a wildly higher rate of police interactions with black people as the cost of doing statist/collectivist business. It really does seem like nobody wants to dig much deeper than that.
Why the vastly higher rates???? Why??? lol Because minorities have a much higher rate of criminality. You go where the crime is.
The reasons? Single parenthood.
The cause? The welfare state encourages people to not work and not stay together to raise their kids.
There is no systematic racism and you cannot prove it. That's just a crutch the lefties use to cover for the failure of minorities to succeed which is caused by the handouts the left uses to buy votes.
I would expect you to say something like that. The only thing I get out of it is that you lie alot.
Why the vastly higher rates???? Why??? lol Because minorities have a much higher rate of criminality. You go where the crime is.
The reasons? Single parenthood.
The cause? The welfare state encourages people to not work and not stay together to raise their kids.
And the "racism state" created high levels of poverty which chased people into welfare for relief.
You keep leaving that out. If single parents is the antecedents of welfare, welfare is the antecedent of racism for blacks. Ergo, its not the welfare state that is the root cause of high black single parent homes, its the "racism state".
Per capita minorities seem much more likely to get shot, judging from those numbers. After all, there are many more white people than black people...
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.
Like other stories peddled by the left, however, this is a provable lie. To add, I'll just write that the fact that someone is unarmed does not mean that the police used excessive force in handling a situation that led to death. More needs to be known in every case.
