People shot dead by police in the US in 2015

[Deathquoi]

My thoughts on it?

http://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m22.wpen...Crime-2016.pdf

I'm surprised there's not more black people getting shot when looking at this.

Well done posting a study by a white supremacist group.

[Deleted]

I'm not talking about the study, I'm talking about using the results of the study in a thread that's about 'death by guns used by other people' not matching up. It's perfectly valid for the study, but it's not valid for this thread. This thread is about people being shot by other people, not shooting themselves, thus why using suicide numbers for this thread is inflating numbers artificially and unnecessarily.

Oh that's true.

[Mistame]

If we don't mind just a 100 unarmed people getting shot (often for no reason besides the cop being trigger happy)

Warning of impending hyperbole. ^

then why not also allow Death Penalty again

Some states still have the death penalty. Not that this logic is even valid.

or allow 1000 kids to get raped every year because it's just a small number?

This is the textual equivalent of throwing a hyperbolic temper tantrum.

And to the usual suspects who say "but vehicles kill alot more than guns!" Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vi..._United_States

Pretty loose comparison, your go-to of semantics aside.

Anyway, to me it looks like we have a faulty system that keeps the black man down.

The only thing that "keeps the black man down" is the belief that he's being kept down.

[Taneras]

1. You can't assume that homicide rate equals violent crime rate.

But you can assume that general population = violent crime rate? Gotcha. Out of either, mine will be closer. I'm not claiming any specific numbers, only that based on what the data does show you're not going to get where you want to be (blacks being over represented in police shootings).

2. You can't assume that violent crime rate, which is determined by arrests and/or convictions, means a demographic is actually more violent. Chance to be arrested and prosecuted for a violent crime does not equal chance to commit a violent crime.

How else would one measure how violent a demographic is outside of measuring violent crimes?

Until you think up something better we'll just treat this as a good baseline to start from, much better than your "Oh, just look at the general population!" line of reasoning you initially posed.

Looking at violent crime statistics explains why men make up 95% of police shootings despite accounting for only 50% of the population. A problem your "Oh, just look at the general population!" line of reasoning couldn't solve. Same goes for the elderly over 65 years old or the children under 10. I wonder what their population percentages are, and what portion of the police shooting they account for. Want to bet they're also under represented?

I will say this, though. Intuitively speaking, I'd bet those numbers would be farther skewed against the black community if every crime was solved. Many black communities and people within black communities have, and this is well documented, a bad record of cooperation with police. This leads to a significant amount of crimes committed within these communities to go unsolved, and since data also supports that black on black crime makes up the bulk of total black crime, we can assume that many of these unsolved cases where the locals are too tight lipped and don't want to aid police in an investigation are crimes commited by a black offender.

3. Being a cop isn't a very dangerous job. We know this because we have injury and fatality statistics and it doesn't rank terribly high. Being a roofer or a trucker is much, much more dangerous. When you consider how few police injuries are because of altercations, as opposed to car accidents, it appears even safer.

Considering police shootings of unarmed black people is equally as small when compared to car accidents, by your own logic these shooting deaths shouldn't be the target of too much focus, just like how safe it is to be a police officer.

And again, unless you know how many categories of professions there are, being ranked 14th or 15th could very well be a high ranking. Look at NCAA football, being ranked 14th or 15th out of 120+ teams is quite an accomplishment. You can try and down play it to fit your narrative, but its not going to work on most people.

If it's so much easier, then the statistics should not show those jobs to have higher rates of injury and death.

Actually it probably does if you look close enough.

If you looked at the injury statistics you'd likely see a curve, with the new people on the job having far less injuries and people with more experience having far more injuries.

People become complacent as they get use to things. Maybe that electrician with 20+ years experience goes against his training and cuts a corner on something he's done a thousand times, where a green electrician, just out of trade school, who had it drilled it into them that its not safe to cut that corner just a few months prior, doesn't.

I work in the medical field, I see a lot of construction workers, that's their story.

If its true, if you stay safe and don't get too complacent/go autopilot on a job because its the 1000th time you've done it, the injuries are likely a lot lower.

So, again, I'd rather be in a field where I could control all, or almost all of the factors surrounding my safety rather than a job where the largest part of the equation that determines whether or not I'm injured or killed is a giant question mark because I cannot read minds and people behave differently.

That's common sense.

[anyaka21]

1. You can't assume that homicide rate equals violent crime rate.
2. You can't assume that violent crime rate, which is determined by arrests and/or convictions, means a demographic is actually more violent. Chance to be arrested and prosecuted for a violent crime does not equal chance to commit a violent crime.
3. Being a cop isn't a very dangerous job. We know this because we have injury and fatality statistics and it doesn't rank terribly high. Being a roofer or a trucker is much, much more dangerous. When you consider how few police injuries are because of altercations, as opposed to car accidents, it appears even safer.



Because the main targets are black males, which have always been the main targets of anti-black racism.

nice doublespeak there....

Don't assume, don't assume, don't assume.

but don'r question your assumption...

[Keosen]

This book was written by an African-American woman.

Katheryn Russell-Brown (born Katheryn K. Russell, September 17, 1961) is a professor of law and director of the Center for the Study of Race and Race Relations at University of Florida's Fredric G. Levin College of Law. Her main areas of expertise are race and crime, sociology of law and criminal law.

And revised by a guy who supports negative population growth (aka not only stop reproduction but depopulate with whatever this means), fanatic anti-immigrationist and writer of totally non-racist papers like
"The Impact of Refugees on the Size and Security of the U.S.Population" and "The Negative Economic Impact of Immigration on American Workers"

[anyaka21]

Allegedly. How many of those were cases of "He took my tazer!" or "I was being dragged!"?

Conveniently, we only have the cop's word on the matter.

How many cases do we have like this where the video doesn't get leaked to the media and the PD successfully covers it all up?

your link is one incident....

so unless you have footage for a lot more, ill take this as an isolated incident.

You, however, based on your previous post, seemcto think this is what happens on every stop.

- - - Updated - - -

Well done posting a study by a white supremacist group.

source? ....

[Deleted]

the real interesting question would be: whats the percentages for white unarmed ppl shot and black unarmed ppl shot.

[NineSpine]

This makes sense. I find it plausible.

My claim is much weaker - I don't think there's a strong causal relationship between prevalence of guns and suicide rate. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some. This relatively weak null hypothesis position doesn't require anywhere near as much evidence as the claim that guns are a significant driver of suicide.

So, assuming that you actually think these are great points and you're not just being snarky, it leaves us back at having a pretty low confidence level in the impact of guns on suicide based on available data.

We do have data on the effect of making easy and common suicide methods more difficult, and we know it reduces the incidence rate of suicide. That is a much stronger set of evidence, because it is time-based.

- - - Updated - - -

nice doublespeak there....

Don't assume, don't assume, don't assume.

but don'r question your assumption...

Which assumption? I know that one of the main reasons men are so over-incarcerated compared to women is the extraordinarily high rate of black male incarceration. That's not some crazy, wild speculation. It's kind of an obvious fact.

[Spectral]

We do have data on the effect of making easy and common suicide methods more difficult, and we know it reduces the incidence rate of suicide. That is a much stronger set of evidence, because it is time-based.

I haven't read the literature enough to speak to this meaningfully. I'm fine with taking your word for it since it's an entirely plausible claim and would be surprising if it wasn't true. The size of the effect is the only real question.

In any case, we know that there's a substitution effect that's way above zero, which renders pointing to guns as the cause of all suicide deaths with guns pretty silly.

[Masark]

your link is one incident....

so unless you have footage for a lot more, ill take this as an isolated incident.

One incident that was covered up for 5 years and was only uncovered because someone finally leaked the video to the media.

[NineSpine]

But you can assume that general population = violent crime rate? Gotcha. Out of either, mine will be closer. I'm not claiming any specific numbers, only that based on what the data does show you're not going to get where you want to be (blacks being over represented in police shootings).

Homicide rate is still not a stand-in for overall violent crime rate. You can respond to that fact with whatever nonsense you want, but it won't make your falsehood into truth.

How else would one measure how violent a demographic is outside of measuring violent crimes?

Crime victimization rates are a good starter, especially if you control for external factors such as poverty, but that second part depends on how honest you actually want to be. Nobody denies that black people on average commit more crimes. The issue is that there are explanations for that which are more nuanced and complex than that black people are inherently more violent. Overestimating the rate of violence by blacks in order to make that latter point is dishonest on both levels.

Until you think up something better we'll just treat this as a good baseline to start from, much better than your "Oh, just look at the general population!" line of reasoning you initially posed.

Looking at violent crime statistics explains why men make up 95% of police shootings despite accounting for only 50% of the population. A problem your "Oh, just look at the general population!" line of reasoning couldn't solve. Same goes for the elderly over 65 years old or the children under 10. I wonder what their population percentages are, and what portion of the police shooting they account for. Want to bet they're also under represented?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this, or even what the "general population" point you say I made means in regards to this.

I will say this, though. Intuitively speaking, I'd bet those numbers would be farther skewed against the black community if every crime was solved. Many black communities and people within black communities have, and this is well documented, a bad record of cooperation with police. This leads to a significant amount of crimes committed within these communities to go unsolved, and since data also supports that black on black crime makes up the bulk of total black crime, we can assume that many of these unsolved cases where the locals are too tight lipped and don't want to aid police in an investigation are crimes commited by a black offender.

Of course black on black crime makes up the bulk of black crime. White on white crime makes up the bulk of white crime. The rest of your point is nonsense speculation.

Considering police shootings of unarmed black people is equally as small when compared to car accidents, by your own logic these shooting deaths shouldn't be the target of too much focus, just like how safe it is to be a police officer.

And again, unless you know how many categories of professions there are, being ranked 14th or 15th could very well be a high ranking. Look at NCAA football, being ranked 14th or 15th out of 120+ teams is quite an accomplishment. You can try and down play it to fit your narrative, but its not going to work on most people.

Great. It's still not that dangerous. I'm not talking about top ten lists. I'm talking about just the general rate of injury and death. It isn't that high. A roofer is about three times more likely to be killed on the job. A sanitation worker is twice as likely. A truck river is 1.5 times as likely. Police landscapers, and farmers have about the same rate of fatalities. Is that more dangerous than a desk job? Sure, but it's not bizarre and out the norm. It just isn't. You can keep repeating that it is, but it fucking isn't.

Actually it probably does if you look close enough.

If you looked at the injury statistics you'd likely see a curve, with the new people on the job having far less injuries and people with more experience having far more injuries.

People become complacent as they get use to things. Maybe that electrician with 20+ years experience goes against his training and cuts a corner on something he's done a thousand times, where a green electrician, just out of trade school, who had it drilled it into them that its not safe to cut that corner just a few months prior, doesn't.

I work in the medical field, I see a lot of construction workers, that's their story.

If its true, if you stay safe and don't get too complacent/go autopilot on a job because its the 1000th time you've done it, the injuries are likely a lot lower.

So, again, I'd rather be in a field where I could control all, or almost all of the factors surrounding my safety rather than a job where the largest part of the equation that determines whether or not I'm injured or killed is a giant question mark because I cannot read minds and people behave differently.

That's common sense.

None of that makes the job actually more dangerous. A higher rate of injuries and deaths makes the job dangerous. The idea that police have no control over the factors surrounding their safety is fucking bizarre. Far more police officers are injured in auto accidents than are shot.

- - - Updated - - -

I haven't read the literature enough to speak to this meaningfully. I'm fine with taking your word for it since it's an entirely plausible claim and would be surprising if it wasn't true. The size of the effect is the only real question.

In any case, we know that there's a substitution effect that's way above zero, which renders pointing to guns as the cause of all suicide deaths with guns pretty silly.

Yes, I agree that that would be a dumb argument, but the effect seems to be pretty substantial based on those examples. While suicide is not something people do out of nowhere, it is typically the product of a very quick decision when they finally get to it. Survivors very commonly report regretting the decision immediately. Obstacles to a quick and easy suicide give people more time to decide not to do it.

[Taneras]

Nobody denies that black people on average commit more crimes.

So can we put away the idea that blacks are over represented in police shootings? Because that's my point.

The issue is that there are explanations for that which are more nuanced and complex than that black people are inherently more violent.

I'm not saying that, nor did I ever imply that. I've commented on the statistics and what they suggest with regards to who the police are shooting. I understand the effects of poverty, drug culture, single parenthood, etc. Regardless of the causes for black crime, it does explain why blacks are being shot more than 13% of the time despite only making up 13% of the population. That's my point.

The point of this thread wasn't to discuss why blacks commit more crime, it was to discuss whether or not black lives matter's main focus on police shootings and claims that blacks are over represented in police shootings is categorically false.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this, or even what the "general population" point you say I made means in regards to this.

My mistake, I thought you had originally suggested that since blacks make up 13% of the population that they should only account for 13% of the police shootings. It's a claim that's been made no less than a dozen times in this thread and I mistakenly thought you had said it.

Sorry.

Of course black on black crime makes up the bulk of black crime. White on white crime makes up the bulk of white crime. The rest of your point is nonsense speculation.

So if the majority of black crime is black on black crime, and we have a big basket of unsolved police cases of crimes being committed against a black victim, its "nonsense speculation" to assume that most of those unsolved crimes, if solved, would reveal a black offender?

Great. It's still not that dangerous. I'm not talking about top ten lists. I'm talking about just the general rate of injury and death. It isn't that high. A roofer is about three times more likely to be killed on the job. A sanitation worker is twice as likely. A truck river is 1.5 times as likely. Police landscapers, and farmers have about the same rate of fatalities. Is that more dangerous than a desk job? Sure, but it's not bizarre and out the norm. It just isn't. You can keep repeating that it is, but it fucking isn't.

Going off this list...

http://time.com/4326676/dangerous-jobs-america/

"That’s far higher than the average for all civilians of 3.4 fatal injuries per 100,000 workers"

Police are around 14 fatal injuries per 100,000 and the overall average when all jobs are considered is 3.4.

Having a job that's has about 4 times higher than the national average with regards to work related deaths is high.

You can spaz out and tell me about a hand full of jobs that are significantly higher than police all you want, but you can't reasonably pretend that 4 times the average is "the norm".

None of that makes the job actually more dangerous.

Thankfully I wasn't using my explanation of inexperienced workers vs experienced workers to downplay just how dangerous a job is. I was justifying my own personal preference on the matter.

The idea that police have no control over the factors surrounding their safety is fucking bizarre.

Thankfully I never said they didn't have any control. Only that the largest factor, what other people are doing/planning on doing, isn't under their control.

- - - Updated - - -

Conveniently, we only have the cop's word on the matter.

And all the evidence that an investigation would uncover, like video, eye witness testimony, autopsy, etc. But yea, yours sounds a lot more ominous and fits the anti-police narrative a lot better, so lets go with that one!

[NineSpine]

So can we put away the idea that blacks are over represented in police shootings? Because that's my point.

No, because that still doesn't explain the size of the disparity, or issues like blacks being more likely than whites to be shot WHILE unarmed.

I'm not saying that, nor did I ever imply that. I've commented on the statistics and what they suggest with regards to who the police are shooting. I understand the effects of poverty, drug culture, single parenthood, etc. Regardless of the causes for black crime, it does explain why blacks are being shot more than 13% of the time despite only making up 13% of the population. That's my point.

It doesn't explain a 2.5x disparity, and it doesn't explain why the treatment of black offenders seems to differ strongly from the treatment of white offenders.

The point of this thread wasn't to discuss why blacks commit more crime, it was to discuss whether or not black lives matter's main focus on police shootings and claims that blacks are over represented in police shootings is categorically false.

Except it isn't false.

My mistake, I thought you had originally suggested that since blacks make up 13% of the population that they should only account for 13% of the police shootings. It's a claim that's been made no less than a dozen times in this thread and I mistakenly thought you had said it.

Sorry.

Well, they SHOULD only make up 13%, to the extent that there "should" be any police shootings in the first place. However, only a very stupid person would suggest that the white and black populations are identical in so many regards that no disparity will exist even if people are handled evenly.

So if the majority of black crime is black on black crime, and we have a big basket of unsolved police cases of crimes being committed against a black victim, its "nonsense speculation" to assume that most of those unsolved crimes, if solved, would reveal a black offender?

It's nonsense speculation because you are taking a popular cultural trope (snitches get stitches) and assuming it has a statistically significant effect. That just from trope to statistical significance doesn't seem to have any real evidence to warrant it.

Going off this list...

http://time.com/4326676/dangerous-jobs-america/

"That’s far higher than the average for all civilians of 3.4 fatal injuries per 100,000 workers"

Police are around 14 fatal injuries per 100,000 and the overall average when all jobs are considered is 3.4.

Having a job that's has about 4 times higher than the national average with regards to work related deaths is high.

You can spaz out and tell me about hand full of jobs that are significantly higher than police all you want, but you can't reasonably pretend that 4 times the average is "the norm".

Being four times higher is not necessarily way outside the norm, especially when you are dealing with such low numbers anyway. That's just an argument of "It sounds big so it must be significant." First of all, about half of police deaths are related to auto accidents, which is not what people mean when they say being a police officer is a dangerous job. Second of all, I didn't cite a handful of jobs. The jobs I cited are a HUGE chunk of the people working in the country. There are 3.5M truckers, 2.2M farmers, etc. It really wouldn't be a stretch to say that, at worst, cops are at about the 80th percentile for chance of workplace fatality. Is that high, sure.... but it's not crazy. It's not 99th percentile. There's no reason to go crazy and suspend the normal rules of society to mitigate that. Loads of random innocent people don't need to die to preserve that.

Thankfully I wasn't using my explanation of inexperienced workers vs experienced workers to downplay just how dangerous a job is. I was justifying my own personal preference on the matter.

Thankfully I never said they didn't have any control. Only that the largest factor, what other people are doing/planning on doing, isn't under their control.

I could say the same about truckers. So what?

[Masark]

And all the evidence that an investigation would uncover, like video, eye witness testimony, autopsy, etc. But yea, yours sounds a lot more ominous and fits the anti-police narrative a lot better, so lets go with that one!

You mean like the "investigation" that participated in that cover-up?

[anyaka21]

One incident that was covered up for 5 years and was only uncovered because someone finally leaked the video to the media.

it's still just one incident. And as deplorable as it is, it can't and shouldn't be considered the norm, as was being suggested.

[jakeic]

It only places the dangers of that job into perspective. It doesn't diminish it.

Frankly, I'd rather deal with a job who's dangers deal with physics (electricians/lumber workers) rather than something as dynamic as a person. A tree won't jump out of the ground and fall on you. It's much easier to control the environment in a lot of those professions than it is to control a person.

Yeah perspective, being a police officer is slightly more dangerous than being a lawn care expert.

[Underverse]

No, because that still doesn't explain the size of the disparity, or issues like blacks being more likely than whites to be shot WHILE unarmed.....other stuff

The Washington Post noted further that all but 93 of the 990 people fatally shot by police were armed, usually with a firearm or knife. The unarmed victims had the following racial distribution:
White: 34.4 percent (32 victims)
Black: 40.8 percent (38)
Hispanic: 19.4 percent (18)
Asian: 0 percent (0)
Unknown: 5.4 percent (5)

An unarmed black was therefore 5.6 times more likely than an unarmed white to be shot by police, and a Hispanic was 2.6 times more likely. The black multiple is certainly high, though not that much higher than the California violent-arrest multiple of 5.35 noted above.

There is no obvious explanation for why unarmed blacks were shot and killed at a white multiple that was twice that for armed blacks. If police bias is the cause, there is no clear reason why it should be worse in the case of unarmed suspects. The sample size of 93 is small, so random events produce a large effect. It may be that race differences in how suspects behave when they are arrested explain at least part of the difference. There are no national data, but a five-year study of non-felony arrests in San Francisco found that blacks were 9.6 times more likely than whites (including Hispanics) to be charged with resisting arrest, and whites were 8.6 times more likely than Asians to be so charged.

While this is by no means definitive, these statistics provide a possible explanation via the observed frequency of resisting arrest by ethnic background.

[Taneras]

No, because that still doesn't explain the size of the disparity

Yes, yes it does. Because of the amount of violent crimes black people commit, they come into contact with police more than their 13% population statistic would suggest.

I've already shown murder rates, 54% for the black community?

If you want to tell me that black communities will commit the most violent of crimes (murder) at such a high rate but draw the line at assault, armed robbery, and other forms of lesser violence you're going to need to back your claim up with statistics.

Even being generous and cutting the 54% in half for other violent crimes, you're still seeing blacks being way over represented in violent crimes.

or issues like blacks being more likely than whites to be shot WHILE unarmed.

Gonna need statistics on that. The one posted here does list the unarmed shootings, but doesn't do a break down by race.

Except it isn't false.

If only you could back that up with statistics...

It's nonsense speculation because you are taking a popular cultural trope (snitches get stitches) and assuming it has a statistically significant effect. That just from trope to statistical significance doesn't seem to have any real evidence to warrant it.

I said that intuition suggests that those statistics would be skewed further against the black community. I never said how much of an effect it would have. Even if it only moves the bar one hundredth of a percent then my statement would be correct.

Being four times higher is not necessarily way outside the norm

Just stop, its not the norm. Period. I get your point though, its not the most dangerous job and when I come across someone who thinks that it is I'll be sure to tell them that its just one of the most dangerous jobs just for you. I'm sure that somehow matters.

I could say the same about truckers. So what?

So truckers and police officers safety is more out of their own control than some of those other jobs. Maybe its a foreign concept to you, but some people like to have as much control over their own safety as possible.

If one job consists of me eating potato chips and the other is swimming with sharks, and I have a higher likelihood of choking to death on one of those chips verses getting eaten by the shark, I'll still choose the chip job because I have more control over that. I'll be extra careful when swallowing. No matter how careful I am, my safety is out of my own hands when I'm nose to nose with a shark. Off the wall example, obviously, but it does highlight the point I'm making.

- - - Updated - - -

While this is by no means definitive, these statistics provide a possible explanation via the observed frequency of resisting arrest by ethnic background.

Thanks for posting that.

So 41% black vs 35% white. Still not breaking past the violent crime by race statistics.

[Underverse]

On a side note, the ethnic distribution of the officers committing these unarmed killings does not reflect a distribution that might be predicted if systemic racism was a significant factor in police-civilian interactions:

A 2015 Department of Justice study (page 3) of police shootings in Philadelphia found racial differences in “threat perception failure,” that is, cases in which an officer shot an unarmed suspect because the officer thought the suspect was armed. Black officers were nearly twice as likely as white officers to shoot an unarmed black (11.4 percent of all shootings by black officers vs. 6.8 percent of all shootings by white officers). The percentage of such errors by Hispanic officers—16.7
percent—was even higher.