Now as far as whatever your alleged position is...you could all along bring up your own point and your own data. No one has been stopping you. Instead you are citing an author who begins with a posionous strawman, one that you are now moving away from. So, if any poster here is shifting goalposts, it would be you. But again, all you have to do is state your position somewhere for people to read and what your data is. You don't need to attach your whole argument on something poisonous or try to keep defending it by attacking me. It makes absolutely no sense.
Why should I dig it all out when it's already been done? Especially considering paywalls.
I have gone to your NEW link and looked at some of it, starting here:
It's the same article, just from a different place. And I'll freely admit the guy is biased, but that doesn't change the facts he's presenting.
Aside from obvious bias, conspiracy-minded nonsense, there are several flaws throughout this strawman that does not define systemic racism correctly.
I wouldn't say conspiracy-minded nonsense. The media has a very hard time with saying "it's not an issue". That doesn't get eyeballs, "it's a big deal!!!" does. There's no conspiracy in that, just an unpleasant reality of business.
2. "...only a very small number of unarmed black men are killed by police each year..." I think that this could indeed be a metric of systemic racism, but it is far too narrow to broadly measure racism. Also, it's so narrow that it doesn't reflect systemic racism. Many people may be armed with something--not urgently murderous like a screwdriver or a taser--and be killed. The statistics for that would most likely show that African Americans are more likely to be those who are killed by police in such situations because the incidence of those types of crimes (as opposed to say white collar crimes) are more likely among that demographic. And that demographic could possibly also be more likely perceived as dangerous, even when not. So, overall, it's a very selective statistic.
Still not addressing the numbers, I see.
3. "First, to put the statistics into perspective, it’s helpful to begin with the overall number of arrests. According to the DOJ, police make about 10 million arrests each year. As a rough average, 7 million of the arrested suspects are white and 3 million are black. Out of that number, last year, 25 unarmed white people were killed by police, compared to 14 unarmed black people, according to the Washington Post database of police shootings. That means about .0004 percent of all blacks arrested were killed while unarmed." -- uh, many of the people who were killed were never arrested and so they are not included in this narrow statistic. Examples: Trayvon Martin whose death was not treated with justice by the police or justice system; Breonna Taylor; the social worker who was shot while laying down next to his patient in the road where the patient had a toy truck. So what is the true number of unnecessary killings??
BLM is about police violence, he's looking at police violence. You're trying to move the goalposts. And the fact the ones that were killed weren't arrested is irrelevant, the numbers are far below the error margin.
Besides this, again, this number of persons during arrest is a very narrow metric. How about the number out of those arrests that were a violation of constitutional rights? or were unnecessary or comparatively treated differently according to demographics? How about any kind of outcome, besides deaths, such as violence or planting evidence?
Once again, you're trying to move the goalposts.
4. "In total, 1,000 people were shot and killed by police in 2019, the vast majority of whom were armed." -- Well, again, these numbers are coming from arrests and apprehensions for arrest not other incidents of killing. BUT I am extremely skeptical this number is complete. Back in 2016, only 16 states participated in one database and this was compared to other databases which were even more incomplete.
It's the WaPo database, not a police database.
Let's look at something peer-reviewed instead which would be more reliable:
Objective. To evaluate the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) as a surveillance system for homicides by law enforcement officers.
Methods. We assessed sensitivity and positive predictive value of the NVDRS “type of death” variable against our study count of homicides by police, which we derived from NVDRS coded and narrative data for states participating in NVDRS 2005 to 2012. We compared state counts of police homicides from NVDRS, Vital Statistics, and Federal Bureau of Investigation Supplementary Homicide Reports.
Results. We identified 1552 police homicides in the 16 states. Positive predictive value and sensitivity of the NVDRS “type of death” variable for police homicides were high (98% and 90%, respectively). Counts from Vital Statistics and Supplementary Homicide Reports were 58% and 48%, respectively, of our study total; gaps varied widely by state. The annual rate of police homicide (0.24/100 000) varied 5-fold by state and 8-fold by race/ethnicity.
Conclusions. NVDRS provides more complete data on police homicides than do existing systems.
Policy Implications. Expanding NVDRS to all 50 states and making 2 improvements we identify will be an efficient way to provide the nation with more accurate, detailed data on homicides by law enforcement.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4985110/
Highlight: police homicide varied 8-fold by race/ethnicity.
1) This is about all deaths, not unarmed deaths.
2) It's not controlling for crime rates.
------------------
Conclusion: Based on looking further into the numbers, there isn't much there that reliably disproves my prediction from the first poisonous strawman. The author continues to narrowly only look at something far less common of a metric than systemic racism to try to invalidate racism and "police brutality" even those things are both broader than police homicides. The specific numbers used also do not seem reliable from this random Internet meme of numbers. Actual peer-reviewed analysis, even with this very narrow metric, has historically shown a racial difference.
It makes even less sense for me to look at Loren's "but ReAD ThhisSSS!!!!1111" link.
He's looking at what BLM is supposedly complaining about. Yes, it's very narrow--that's the point!
